) er 
. Set Aa Ab re, TARE AO 
Wy Cha tea thst DC) } 
CMA 74} ἍΜ 1} 2.9} 1.71} 
) it 


eeu 
ies ve! ἐν ᾿ 
yes "ἡ +) 


ἐδ 


Ἰδὲ" 
Ἧ 


teins ᾿ 
ty 


iti 


a 


ΠΗ 
evoke 


ia fy 
tee a on 
i} fia Sa eey wa 


px 
ΔΗ 


iF fie 
ris) 
ha 
beige 


fs 
te pia: 


se a om 
hull 


ΝΜ ety tueg® 
Ἢ Ἀπ πτ rye το ὦ . 
Heralds, 
ἘΜ ΣΑ angel 
ἜΝ 


Hitt: τε 
beri 


hla 


ewer 


ati 
Uy ᾿ 

Sie eM δὴν 

; ἢ 


ἘΠ ea 
ἢ 


<< Ψ ων ste 


ae 
1 

reba in 
wir ie 


es.” 
we 


i 
ne te ΣΥΝ 


ahaa sh areee er 
Fea } 
is! 


te apte bit eet | 


sealies: 


ν 


“ 
“ἦι 


ryt! 
ἣν : 
τι: « Sy ; ’ ΠΝ . is 
Char \ Ὡ he" He. 1 yy: ny Wnvia ieee 
yar ues sar} 4 ΜΗ ᾿ ν rather 
: " ἀπε τα ethos 











Library of Che Theological Seminary 
PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 
(Sr 


PRESENTED BY 
Mrs. Huston Dixon 




















eA) ἄνευ 








a fe | 
ων - 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


HANDBOOK 


TO 





THE GENERAL EPISTLES 


JAMES, PETER, JOHN, AND JUDE. 


BY 


JOH. ED. HUTHER, πὴ 


PASTOR AT WITTENFORDEN BEI SCHWERIN. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD EDITION OF THE GERMAN 
BY 


REV. PATON J..;\GLOAG, D.D., ἢ. B. CROOM, M.A., 
AND REV. CLARKE H. IRWIN, M.A. 


WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE 
AMERICAN EDITION 


By TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 


PBESIDENT OF YALE UNIVERSITY. 


NEW YORK: 
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 
18 ἃ 20 Astor PLACE. 
1887. 








τ» 










; Basis wh 
h aA τὰ ie “eee 
f aA Gs ae 
A be πο Mr 





rit bas 
of We “she τ ns 





i ine Sai 
᾿ Β 1 
Sas 
᾿» 
ὃ + 
» 
ν . 
4 = ) 
i “ 
ry 
4 ae 
* 
; ; ( : 1 





PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


THE commentaries included within the present volume of Meyer’s 
Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book were prepared by his coadjutor, 
Dr. J. E. Huther. The English translation was made from the 
latest editions of the several commentaries which were published 
before Dr. Huther’s death. Since his death, a fourth edition of 
the Commentary on the Epistle of James has appeared in Germany 
(in 1882), with some additions by Dr. Willibald Beyschlag, who 
has carefully revised the work. To this volume of Beyschlag, 
some references have been made in the Additional Notes of the 
American Editor. A fifth edition of the Commentary on the 
Epistles of Peter and Jude has been prepared under the editor- 
ship of Ernst Kihl, but has not as yet been received. That 
Huther was the equal of Meyer in those qualities and gifts which 
make the great exegete, will not be claimed by any competent 
scholar; but that he was a worthy associate in the work of which 
Meyer wrote so large’ a portion, is proved by the ability with 
which he discharged the duty assigned to him, and by the favor- 
able reception which his commentaries have met with on the part 
of all who have used them. 

The Additional Notes of the American Editor have been 
prepared in accordance with the same principles and purpose with 
those which governed him in the preparation of the notes added 
to the other volumes of Meyer’s Commentary of which he has 
had editorial care. They have been placed at the end of the 
volume; and the reader’s attention is invited to them with the 
hope, on the writer’s part, that some help and some suggestions 
of value may be found in them in connection with the study of 


the several epistles. 
iii 


κὰν 


iv PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. » 


Tt is scarcely necessary to remind the reader, that, in the 
references to the N. T. Grammars of Winer snd Battmann, 
the mumbers following the letiers ἘΞ T. designate the pages 
of the tramsiaiions of those works by Professor J. Henry Thayer. 
The letters A. V., R. V., and A. RB. V., refer respectively to the 
Authorized Ensiish Version of the New Testament, the Revised 
Version, and the American Appendix to the latter. 

Im giving this Isst volume of Meyer’s work, of which he has 
had editorial charge, to the public, m this American edition, the 
editor would dedieste his part of if, as he has done im the case 
of each of the earlier volumes, to the students whom he has met 
for so many years, and with so much pleasure, m the lecture-rooms 
of the Divinity School of Yale University. 


TIMOTHY DWIGHT. 
New Haves, April %, 1887 


[See Haves, Nor. 25. 1557. --- The Notes of the American Editor of 
thts wolume, and 21 bis editorial] work commected with it, were compleied, 
as the date of the Preface may indicate, im the sprimg of the present year. 
By reasom of umavoideble είτε im the matter of printing, the publication 
of the wolume has been deferred uni the amiomm. Ip the mes time, the 
fifth editiom of Huther’s Commentary om the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 
prepared by Kahl, kes appeared m Germany, and bes been received ἔπ 
this coumiry. The work of Huther, => for as the First Epistle of Peter 
is eomeermed, bas been thoroushly revised; amd, im mamy cases, changes 
Ieave been introduced, amd different views from those of Huther expressed 
In the aoe of the other two Epmiks, there ἔξ, ἔπ compari, moh les 
of mew matter calling for speci] motice §=The Americam Editor has added 
to his own Notes om First Peter 2 comsiderable mumber of statements giving 
Kabl's views, which stafements will be found emelosed im bracketz These 
additions, which were 2} thet under the ciremmsiances could well be made, 
will be sufficient, it is hoped, to aoquaimt the reader im some measure with 
the mew efition ἢ 





“AUTHOR'S PREFACE ΤῸ THE COMMENTARY ON JAMES. 





Is the new revision of this Commentary, the followimg works 
have been chiefly examined - H. Bouman, Comment. perpet. in Jac- 
Ep., ed. 1863, the exposition of the Epistle by Lange (second 
edition, 1866) in Lange’s Bibealwerk, and the third edition of De 


edition of De Wette’s Handbook, contsining the exposition of the 
Epistles of Peter, Jude, snd James, had been previously prepared 
by Brackner- When, in the preface to the third edition, he says 


highly deserving of attention, being the result of a ἴσως exegetical 
insight. It were to be wished thst Brockner had been less tram 
melled by “the duty to preserve the work of De Wette a5 mach 


will only here mention the familiar dissertation of Hengstenberg = 
“«The Epistle of James,” in Nos. 91-94 of the Evangelical Civarch 
Magazine, 1866 - and the explanation of Jas. i. 24-26, by Philippi, 
in his Dogmaiics, vol. 1. pp- 297-315. Both, without assentimge to 
my explanation, agree with me in this, that there is πὸ essential 
difference between the doctrines of Panl and James- Hengstenberg 
arrives at this result by supposing, on the assumption of a justi 
cation gradually developed, that James speaks of 3 different siage 
W 


Avg AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 


of justification from that of Paul; whilst Philippi attributes to 
δικαιοῦν, with James, another meaning than that which it has with 
Paul. I can approve neither of the one method nor of the other ; 
not of the former, because by it the idea of justification is altered 
in-a most serious manner; nor of the latter, because it is wanting 
in linguistic correctness, and, moreover, thoughts are by it given 
which are wholly unimportant. I will not here resume the contro- 
versy with Frank, to which I felt constrained in the publication 
of the second edition; only remarking, that, after a careful examin- 
ation, I have not been able to alter my earlier expressed view 
of James’s doctrine of justification, the less so as it had not its 
origin from dogmatic prepossession, but was demanded by exegetical 
conviction. Moreover, I am no less convinced than formerly, that, 
in the deductions made by me, nothing is contained which contra- 
dicts the doctrine of the church regarding justification. — With 
regard to the question whether the author of this Epistle, the 
brother of the Lord, is or is not identical with the Apostle James, 
I have not been able to change my earlier convictions. If, in 
more recent times, the opposite view has been occasionally main- 
tained, this is either in the way of simple assertion, or on grounds 
which proceed from unjustified suppositions. This present edition 
will show that I have exercised as impartial a criticism as possible 
with regard to my own views, as well as with regard to the views 
of others. 

The quotations from Rauch and Gunkel refer to their reviews 
of this commentary published before the second edition; the one 
is found in No. 20 of the Theol. Literaturblatt of the -Allgem. 
Kirchenzeitung of the year 1858; and the other in the Gdttingen 
gel. Anz., parts 109-112 of the year 1859. I have occasionally 
quoted’ Cremer’s Biblischtheol. Worterbuch des neutest. Grédcitdt. 
The more I know of the value of this work, the more I regret 
that it does not answer to its title, inasmuch as those words are 
only treated which the author considers to be the expressions of 
spiritual, moral, and religious life. A distinction is here made 
which can only with difficulty be maintained. I have quoted 
Winer’s Grammar, not only according to the sixth, but also 
according to the seventh edition, edited by Liinemann. 

I again close this preface with the hope that my labor may 
help to make the truly apostolic spirit of the Epistle of: James 
more valued, and to render its ethical teaching more useful to 
the Church. 


WITTENFORDEN, November, 1869. 


AUTHOR'S PREFACE ΤῸ THE COMMENTARY ON PETER. 


In revising this Commentary on the Epistles of Peter for the 
present fourth edition, the work which I had chiefly to consider 
and subject to a careful examination was the Exposition of the 
Epistles by Von Hofmann. This accordingly I did. Von Hofmann 
often seeks to surmount the exegetical difficulties presented in the 
epistles by a new exposition, and, of course, no exception can be 
taken to this; but it is to be regretted that the interpretations 
are not unfrequently of so artificial a nature that they cannot 
stand the test of an unprejudiced examination, and are conse- 
quently little calculated to promote the true understanding of the 
text. 

As regards the origin of the Second Epistle, my renewed 
investigations have produced no result other than that which I 
had formerly obtained. I can only repeat what I said in the 
preface to the third edition of this Commentary: ‘‘If I should 
be blamed for giving, in’ this edition also, no decisive and final 
answer to the question as to the origin of Second Peter, I will 
say, at the outset, that it seems to me more correct to pronounce 
a non liquet than to cut the knot by arbitrary assertions and acute 
appearances of argument.’’ 

Although this Commentary on the whole has preserved its former 
character, yet it has been subjected to many changes in particulars, 
which I hope may be regarded as improvements. 

I would only add, that, in the critical remarks, it is principally 
Tischendorf’s Recension that has been kept in view. ‘Tisch. 7 
refers to the editio septima critica minor, 1859; Tisch. 8, to his 
editio octava major, 1869. Where the two editions agree in a 
reading, Tisch. simply is put. 

J. Ep. HUTHER. 


WITTENFORDEN, May, 1877. 
vil 





THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


INTRODUCTION. 
SEC. 1.—JAMES. 


Tue author of this Epistle designates himself in the inscription 
᾿Ιάκωβος, Θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, and thus announces himself to 
be, though not an apostle in the narrower sense of the term, yet a man 
of apostolic dignity. From this, as well as from the attitude which he 
takes up toward the circle of readers to whom he has directed his 
Epistle (ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαὶς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ), it is evident that no other 
James can be meant than he who, at an early period in the Acts of the 
Apostles, appears as the head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, 
xy. 13 ff., xxi. 18); whom Paul calls ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου (Gal. i. 19), and 
reckons among the στύλοις (Gal. ii. 9), and whom Jude, the author of 
the last Catholic Epistle, designates as his brother (Jude 1); the same 
who in tradition received the name ὁ dixawg (Hegesippus in Eusebius, 
Hist. Eccl. ii. 23, iv. 22), who was regarded even by the Jews as an 
ἀνὴρ δικαιότατος (Joseph., Antig. xx. 3, 1), to whom a higher dignity than 
that of the apostles is attributed in the Clementines, and who, according 
to the narrative of Josephus, suffered martyrdom about the year 63; 
according to that of Hegesippus (Euseb. ii. 23), not long before the 
destruction of Jerusalem.? 

As regards the question whether this James is to be considered as 
identical with the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus, as is maintained 


1 No certain decision can be come to on this τοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ καὶ) τινας (ἑτέρους) 
difference, especially as the narrative of Hege- «νον παρέδωκε λευσθησομένους, the genuineness 
sippus (comp. Lange’s Komment., Einleitung, of the bracketed words is at least doubtful; 
p. 13 f.) bears unmistakable mythical traces ; Clericus, Lardner, Credner, assert their spuri- 
and in the relation of Josephus: παράγων eis ousness. 


αὐτὸ (τὸν ἀδελφὸν ᾿Ιησοῦ, τοῦ Aeyoumevov Χρισ- 


2 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


in recent times by Lange, Bouman, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others, 
or as a different person, the data given in the N. T. are more favorable 
to the idea of non-identity than to the opposite opinion. 1. When men- 
tion is made in the N. T. of the ἀδελφοί of Jesus, they are represented 
as a circle different from that of the apostles. Thus they are already 
in John ii. 12 distinguished from the μαθηταῖς of Jesus; the same dis- 
tinction is also made after the choice of the twelve apostles (Matt. xii. 
46; Mark iii. 21, 31; Luke viii. 19; John vii. 3), and in such a manner 
that neither in these passages nor in those where the Jews mention 
the brethren of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3)! is there the slightest 
indication that one or several of them belonged to the apostolic circle: 
rather, their conduct toward Jesus is characterized as different from that 
of the apostles; and, indeed, it is expressly said of them that they did 
not believe on Him (John vii. 5). Also after the ascension of Christ, 
when [lis brethren had become believers, and had attached themselves 
to the apostles, they are expressly, and in the same simple manner as 
before, distinguished from the Twelve (Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5). 2. In 
no passage of the N. T. is it indicated that the ἀδελφοί of the Lord were 
not His brothers, in the usual meaning of the word, but His cousins; 
and, on the other hand, James the son of Alphaeus is never reckoned 
as a brother of Jesus, nor is there any trace of a relationship between 
him and the Lord. Certainly the Mary mentioned in John xix. 25 
(ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ) was the mother of the sons of Alphaeus (Matt. xxvii. 56; 
Mark xv. 40), as ᾿Αλφαῖος and Κλωπᾶς are only different forms of the same 
name (‘D5n); but from that passage it does not follow that this Mary 
was a sister of the mother of Jesus (see Meyer in loc.). 38. According 
to the lists of the apostles, only one of the sons of Alphaeus, namely 
James, was the apostle of the Lord. Although the Apostle Lebbaeus 
(Matt. x. 3), whom Mark calls Thaddaeus (Mark iii. 18), is the same 
with ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου in Luke (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), yet he was not 
ἃ brother of James; for, on the one hand, if this were the case he 
would have been called so by Matthew, who expressly places the brothers 
among the apostles together; and, on the other hand, ἀδελφός is not to 
be supplied to the genitive Ἰακώβου in Luke, —contrary to all analogy, — 


1 According to the Receptus, the names of in Mark they, however, read Ἰωσῆτος; yet 
the brothers of Jesus are James, Joses, Judas, here also the Codex Sinaiticus has ᾿Ιωσήφ. It 
and Simon. Instead of Ιωσής in Matthew, remains doubtful which is the correct name. 
Lachmann, and Tischendorf have adopted, ac- | Comp. Meyer on the passage in Matthew. 
cording to preponderating authority, ᾿Ιωσήφ; 


INTRODUCTION. 3 


but υἱός (see Introduction to Commentary on Jude, sec. 1). According to 
Matt. xxvii. 26 and Mark xv. 40, Alphaeus, besides James, had only one 
other son, Joses. If the apostles Judas and Simon were also his sons, 
his wife Mary in the above passages would have been also called their 
mother, especially as Joses was not an apostle. From all these data, 
then, the brothers of the Lord, James, Judas, and Simon, are not to 
be considered as identical with the apostles bearing the samé names. 
4. There are, however, two passages, Gal. i. 19 and 1 Cor. xv. 7, which 
appear to lead to a different conclusion. In the first passage εἰ uf 
appears to indicate, as many interpreters assume, that Paul, by the 
addition for the sake of historical exactness, remarks that besides the 
Apostle Peter he saw also the Apostle James. But on this supposition 
we cannot see why he should designate him yet more exactly as τὸν 
ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, since the other Apostle James was at that time dead. 
The addition of this surname indicates a distinction of this James from 
the apostle. Now ei μῆ does certainly refer not only to οὐκ εἶδον (Fritzsche, 
Ad Matth., p. 482; Neander, Winer), but to the whole preceding clause; 
still, considering the position which James occupied, Paul might regard 
him, and indeed was bound to regard him, as standing in such a close 
relation to the real apostles that he might use εἰ μῇ without including 
him among them.! It is evident that Paul did not reckon James among 
the original apostles, since in Gal. ii. he names him and Cephas and 
John together, not as apostles, but as οἱ δοκοῦντες eivai τι, of δοκοῦντες στύλοι 
elvat.2 — In the other passage, 1 Cor. xv. 7, the word πᾶσιν may be added 
by Paul, with reference to James formerly named, in the sense: “after- 
wards Christ appeared to James, and then—not to him only, but —to 
all the apostles,” from which it would follow that James belonged to the 


1 Meyer (in loc.) supposes that James is 
here reckoned by Paul among the apostles in 
the wider sense of the term. But it is also 
possible that the words εἰ μὴ, «.7.A., are not to 
be understood as a limitation to the thought 
before expressed, ἕτερον δὲ, x.7.A., but as a 
remark added to it, by which Paul would lay 
stress upon the fact that besides Peter he has 
also seen James, the brother of the Lord, thus 
the man who possessed not only an apostolic 
dignity, but to whom the opponents of Paul 
directly appealed. 

2 That James is reckoned by Paul among 


the στύλοις, has certainly been adduced as an 
argument for the opposite opinion: but that 
Paul does not reckon those named as στύλοι 
because they were apostles, is undeniable; and 
that only apostles could be considered as 
Bou- 


man thinks that a mere private person could 


στύλοι, is an unwarranted assumption. 


not attain to such an importance; but he over- 
looks the fact that James, as the most promi- 
nent of the brothers of the Lord, who are 
named alongside of the apostles, was more 
than a mere private person. 


4 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


apostles. But this reference is not necessary, as πᾶσιν may as well be 
added in order simply to give prominence to the fact that all the 
apostles, without exception, had seen the Lord.! 5. All the other reasons 
for the identity, which are taken from the N. T., as adduced by Lange, 
are too subjective in character to be considered as conclusive: as, for 
example, that Luke in Acts xii. 17 would have felt himself obliged 
to notice that the James mentioned by him here, and farther on, is not 
the same with the James whom he had called an apostle in Acts i. 13;? 
that only an apostle could have written such an epistle, and have attained 
to that consequence which James possessed in the Church;? and that 
it is improbable that, besides the apostles James, Judas, and Simon, 
there should be three of the brothers of Jesus bearing the same names.4 

The testimonies of the post-apostolic age are much too uncertain to 
decide the controversy; for whilst Clemens Alexandrinus (Euseb., Hist. 
Eccel., ii. 1: δύο δὲ γεγόνασιν Ἰακώβοι" εἰς ὁ δίκαιος. . . ἕτερος δὲ ὁ... καρατομηθείς) 
and Jerome declare for the hypothesis of identity, the Apostolic Constitu- 
tions (ii. 55, vi. 12,14; in the latter passage, after the enumeration of the 
twelve apostles, there are yet named: Ἰάκωβός τε ὁ τοῦ κυρίου ἀδελφὰς καὶ Ἵερο- 
σολύμων ἐπίσκοπος καὶ Παῦλος ὁ τῶν ἐθνῶν διδάσκαλος) and Eusebius (commentary 
on Isa. xvii. 5 in Montfaucon, Coll. Nova Patr., ii. p. 422; Hist. Eccl.,i. 12, 
vii. 19) definitely distinguish the brother of the Lord from the apostles. 
The statement of Hegesippus (in Euseb., iv. 22), to which Credner appeals 


1 Otherwise Meyer (in loc.), who here also 
understands the expression ἀπόστολοι in the 
wider sense, which certainly receives a justifi- 
cation from the fact that the original apostles 
had before been designated by Paul as οἱ 
δώδεκα. 

2 Against this it is to be affirmed, that Luke 
might certainly assume such an acquaintance 
on the part of his readers with the circum- 
stances, that in speaking of James in Jerusa- 
lem he did not deem it necessary to remark 
which James he meant. He even names Philip 
(viii. 5) without saying whether he was the 
apostle or the deacon. Bleek (Einl. in N. T., 
p. 545) explains the matter differently; that, as 
the Acts of the Apostles is not to be considered 
an independent work of Luke, we may sup- 
pose that he retained the simple designation 
James as he found it in his document, without 
making any remark on the relation of this 


James to Jesus, and to James the son of 
Alphaeus. 

8 The important position of James in Jeru- 
salem was not founded on the apostolate, as 
that office points rather to missionary activity 
than to an episcopal superintendence of a 
church. 

4 This similarity ceases to be remarkable 
when we consider how frequently the same 
Dames are given to different persons in the 
N. T.; we have only to adduce the names 
Mary, Simon, Joseph, Judas, ete. On the sup- 
position of the identity of these three apostles 
with the three brothers of Jesus, then in the 
passages Matt. xii. 46 (Mark iii. 31; Luke viii. 
19) and John vii. 3, 5, only one brother of the 
Lord, Joses (or Joseph), could be referred to, 
particularly as sisters could not be included in 
the idea of brothers, as Lange, it is true, thinks 
is the case in Acts i. 13, 14. 


INTRODUCTION. : 5 


against, and Kern and Lange for, the identity, is not in favor of it;1 also 
the extract of Jerome from the Hebrew gospel cannot with certainty be 
quoted for it (Hieron., De Vir. Jilustrib., chap. ii.) ; and still less the passage 
in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 35, where the words τῷ λεχθέντι ἀδελφῷ τοῦ 
κυρίου μου annexed to ᾿Ιακώβῳ admit of the explanation that the designation 
The opinions of the later Church 
Fathers are evidently of no weight either for or against the identity. 

On the assumption of identity, the word ἀδελφός cannot be understood 
in its usual sense. 


ἀδελφ. τ. kop. Was his familiar surname. 


The opinion obtaining most favor since the time of 
Jerome is that the so-called ἀδελφοί were the cousins of Jesus, namely, the 
sons of the sister of His mother, who was also called Mary, and was the 
wife of Clopas (= Alphaeus). This view is supported by the interpreta- 
tion of John xix. 25, according to which the words Μαρία ἡ τοὺ Κλωπᾶ are 
taken in apposition to the preceding ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ; and so the 
passage is explained by Theodoret: ἀδελφὸς τοὺ κυρίου ἐκαλεῖτο μέν, οὐκ ἣν δὲ 


φύσει... τοῦ Κλωπᾶ μὲν ἢν υἱός, tov δὲ κυρίου ἀνεψιός" μητέρα γὰρ εἶχε τὴν ἀδελφὴν 


τῆς τοῦ κυρίου μητέρος. 


1 The passage is: μετὰ τὸ μαρτυρῆσαι Ἰάκω- 
βον τὸν δίκαιον, ὡς καὶ ὃ κύριος ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, 
πάλιν ὃ ἐκ θείου αὐτοῦ Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ 
καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος" ὃν προέθεντο πάντες ὄντα 
ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ κυρίου δεύτερον. In this passage 
the translation of αὐτοῦ, of πάλιν, and of 
δεύτερον is doubtful. Kern and Lange refer 
abros to ὁ κύριος, connect πάλιν directly with 
ὃ ἐκ θείου αὐτοῦ, and refer δεύτερον to ἀνεψιὸν 
τοῦ κυρίου. But αὐτοῦ may, as Credner re- 
marks, also refer to ‘Iaxw8ov, and πάλιν be 
connected with καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος, and δεύ- 
τερον with ov προέθεντο. If αὐτοῦ is referred 
to Ἰάκωβον, then James is designated as the 
real brother of Jesus, since in another pas- 
sage (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., iii. 22) Simeon the 
son of Clopas is called by Hegesippus the son 
of the uncle of Jesus; if, on the other hand, it 
is referred to ὁ κύριος, nothing is said regard- 
ing the relationship of James to Jesus: it thus 
depends on the interpretation of πάλιν and 
δευτερον. It cannot be denied that πάλιν is 
more naturally connected with καθίσταται 
ἐπίσκοπος than with the words which immedi- 
ately follow, as in that case it would clearly 


mean that Simeon became bishop a second 


The correct interpretation of that passage removes all 


time; but δεύτερον may at least as well be con- 
nected with ov προέθεντο (in the sense : ** whom 
all appointed the second bishop”) as with 
ὄντα ave. τ. kuptov. — Thus, then, the explana- 
tion of Credner is not inferior to that of Kern 
and Lange, but rather appears to be the more 
probable, as Hegesippus elsewhere designates 
James simply as the brother of the Lord, and 
never indicates that he was an apostle; rather 
in the words: διαδέχεται δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησιαν μετὰ 
τῶν ἀποστόλων ὃ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίον ᾿Ιάκωβος, 
ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος. . . Ἔπει 
πολλοὶ ᾿Ιάκωβοι ἐκαλοῦντο, he seems at least to 
distinguish him from the apostles. According 
to Hegesippus, Clopas was a brother of Joseph 
(Euseb., iii. 4), and thus Simeon as the son of 
Whether this 


is correct, must indeed remain uncertain; it 


Clopas was ἀνεψιὸς τοῦ κυρίου. 


finds no support in the N. T., as there the sons 
of Clopas (= Alphaeus) are only James and 
Joses. From these remarks it follows how 
unjustifiable is the assertion of Lange: “ We 
learn from Hegesippus that James the brother 
of the Lord was a brother of Simeon, and that 


both were the sons of Clopas.” 


6 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


ground for this opinion. Accordingly Lange (in Herzog’s Real-Encyklo- 
pddie, and repeated in his Commentary, Introduction, p. 10), instead of this 
view, has advanced the theory, that as Clopas, according to Hegesippus, was 
a brother of Joseph, the so-called brethren of Jesus were properly His step- 
cousins, but after the early death of Clopas were adopted by Joseph, and so 
actually became the brothers of Jesus. But this opinion is destitute of 
foundation; for even although the narrative of Hegesippus is correct, yet 
tradition is silent concerning the early death of Clopas and the adoption 
of his children by Joseph, and as little “‘does history know that the sons of 
Alphaeus formed one household with the mother of Jesus, and were promi- 
nent members of it,” as Lange maintains. By the denial of identity, ἀδελφός 
is to be understood in its proper sense. Thiersch (Kit. d. neu. test. Schriften, 
pp. 361, 430 ff.) adopts the opinion contained, according to his conjecture, 
in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and already advanced by Origen (on Matt. 
xiii.), that the brothers of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a former 
marriage; but against this Wiesinger rightly insists on the fact that this 
opinion of Origen “was by no means prevalent in his time.” It owed its 
. origin apparently to a delicacy to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, as 
Thiersch confesses that “it is not to him a matter of indifference whether 
the mother of the Lord remained ἀεὶ παρθένος. The evangelists, however, 
have not this feeling, for otherwise Matthew and Luke would not have said 
of Mary: ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, Which points to the birth of later 
children not only as a possible,.but as an actual fact. If it were otherwise, 
there would be some indication in the N. T. that Joseph was a widower 
when he married Mary, or that the ἀδελφοὶ I yood were not her children. — 
According to the N. T., the brothers of Jesus, to whom James belonged, 
are the children of Mary born in wedlock with Joseph after the birth of 
Jesus; as is correctly recognized by Herder, Credner, Meyer, de Wette, 
Wiesinger, Stier, Bleek, and others. 

In what the Evangelists relate of the brothers of Jesus, James is not 
particularly distinguished. Accordingly we are not to consider his conduct 
as different from that of the rest. Although closely related by birth to 
Jesus, His brothers did not recognize His higher dignity, so that Jesus with 
reference to them said οὐχ ἔστι προφῆτης ἄτιμος, εἰ μὴ ἐν TH πατρίδι αὐτοῦ, Kal ἐν TH 
οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ (Matt. xiii. 56). Lange incorrectly infers from John ii. 12, where 
the brothers of Jesus are first mentioned, that “even at the commencement 
of the ministry of Jesus they were spiritually related (that is, by faith) to 
the disciples;” for at that time the brothers had not attached themselves 
to the disciples, but went with them from Cana to Capernaum that they 


INTRODUCTION, vf 


might accompany Mary. At a later period we find them separated from 
the disciples (see Mark iii. 21; Matt. xii. 46; Luke viii. 19);1 they go 
with Mary to the house where Jesus is, because, thinking that He was mad, 
they wished to bring Him home with them, which was evidently no sign of 
their faith, but rather of their unbelief.2_ After the miracle of the loaves, 
when the feast of tabernacles was at hand, they are with Jesus in Galilee; 
but that even at this period they did not believe on Him, is expressly 
asserted by John (vii. 5). Only after the ascension do we find them as 
disciples of the Lord in close fellowship with the apostles. We are not 
informed when this change took place; but from the fact that Jesus on the 
cross resigned His mother, as one forsaken, to the care of John, we may 
conjecture that even then they did not believe. It is probable that our 
Lord’s appearance after His resurrection to James (1 Cor. xv. 5) decided 
his belief, and that his conversion drew his brothers along with him, as may 
So Bleek, Einl. ind. N. T., 


p- 546. James at an early period obtained in the church of Jerusalem such 


be inferred from the force of his character. 


a position that he appears as its head (about A.D. 44); yet this position is 
not that of a bishop in distinction from presbyters, but he was one of the 
presbyters (Acts xv. 22, 23), whose loftier dignity was not derived from 
any special official authority, but only from his personality. In the confer- 
ence at Jerusalem (in the year 50, Acts xv.), James not only took an impor- 
tant part, but his voice gave the decision. We cannot call his advice, in 
accordance with which the definite resolution was arrived at, a compromise; 
for the question whether believers among the Gentiles were obliged to be 
circumcised could only be affirmed or denied. James decided the question 
in the negative; grounding his opinion not on his own experience, nor on 
the communications of Paul and Barnabas, but on the divine act narrated 
by Peter, wherein he recognized the commencement of the fulfilment of the 
definite λόγοι τῶν προφητῶν. When he imposed upon the Gentile Christians 
ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων Kal τῆς πορνείας Kal τοῦ πνικτοῦ Kal τοῦ 


αἵματος, he does so, not in the same sense as that in which the Judaizers im- 


1 This event, according to the united testi- 
mony of the Synoptists, occurred after the 
choice of the Twelve; Mark makes it to fol- 
low directly upon it. In ἔλεγον yap, ver. 21, 
Lange finds an “ artifice’ on the part of those 
belonging to Jesus to rescue Him from the 
death which threatened Him (!). — Meyer 
supplies to ἐξῆλθον, ‘from Nazareth; ” but it 
is probable that the family at this time dwelt 


no longer in Nazareth, but in Capernaum; for 
in Mark vi. 3 the inhabitants of Nazareth say 
only of the sisters, but not of His mother and 
brothers, that they dwelt with them (comp. 
also Matt. xiii. 55). 

2 Lange also, itis true, finds in the demand 
of the brothers a sign of unbelief, but of the 
unbelief of an enthusiasm which had not yet 


risen to self-sacrifice! 


8 ' THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


posed on them the observance of the law; and when as a reason he appeals 
to the reading of Moses every sabbath in the synagogues even of Gentile 
cities, he intimates that he wished to draw the boundary to the freedom of 
the Gentile Christians, within which they must keep themselves if it were 
to be possible for the Jewish Christians to live in brotherly fellowship with 
them. That James not only recognizes Gentile Christianity, but also the 
ἀποστολῆ of Paul, is apparent from Gal. ii. 7 ff.; yet it does not follow that 
he entered entirely into Paul’s views. According to Gal. ii. 12, the persons 
there called τινὲς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου were offended because Peter and the other Jews 
did eat μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν. We are not told in the narrative of Paul that these 
did not come directly from James, but only from Jerusalem; at least, that 
they had not been sent by James, or that they had expressed themselves 
more strongly than the views of James warranted. The influence which 
they exerted on Peter, and even on Barnabas and the other Jewish Chris- 
tians at Antioch, would rather seem to indicate that their words were 
regarded as those of James, who, when he declared himself against συνεσθίειν 
μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν, did not contradict his view expressed in the convention at 
Jerusalem. It is clear from Acts xxi. 17-26 that James attached great im- 
portance to the point that every ἀποστασία of the Jews from Moses should be 
avoided, and that the Gentile Christians should remain by that fourfold 
ἀπέχεσθαι; he even demanded from Paul a proof that he had not ceased to 
observe the law (τὸν νόμον φυλάσσειν). From the fact that Paul complied with 
this demand, it follows not only that he was not hostilely opposed to the 
view of James, but that he respected it, and recognized in it nothing essen- 
tially opposed to his own principles. He could not have done so had James 
insisted on the observance of the law in the same sense as did the Judaizing 
Christians, against whom Paul so often and so decidedly contended. Ac- 
cording to James, the law was not a necessary means of justification along 
with and in addition to faith, but the rule of life appointed by God to the 
people of Israel, according to which believing Israel has to conform in the 
Sree obedience of faith. Thus James was and continued to be in his faith in’ 
Christ a true Jew, without, however, denying that Christianity was not only 
the glorification of Judaism, but also that by it the blessing promised to 


1 If Paul by τὰ ἔθνη (Gal. ii. 12) means not otherwise Peter would have had no reason to 
Gentiles, but, as is certainly the usual view, separate himself from them at their meals. — 
Gentile Christians, we must suppose, with Yet it is doubtful if we are justified in assum- 
Wieseler (Komm. tiber d. Br. an d. Gal.), ing this, as the presupposed fact is not in the 
that the Gentile Christians at Antioch no least indicated by Paul. 
longer kept the rules established at Jerusalem, 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


Israel was imparted to the Gentiles without their being subject to the law 
of Israel.1 The position of James toward the Mosaic law was accordingly 
different from that of Paul. For, whilst the latter was conscious that in 
Christ he was dead to the law (μὴ ὧν ὑπὸ νόμον, 1 Cor. ix. 20), so that he felt 
himself at liberty to be ὡς Ἰουδαῖος to the Jews but ὡς ἄνομος to the ἀνόμοις, 
though always ἔννομος Χριστῷ, the former esteemed it to be a sacred duty 
in Christ to observe the law which God had given to His people through 
Moses.? In this legal obedience James showed such a strict conscientious- 
ness, that even by the Jews he received the name of “the Just.” And con- 
sidering this his peculiar character, it is not at all to be wondered at that 
the Judaistic Christians leant chiefly on him, and that Judaistic tradition 
imparted additional features to his portrait, by which he appeared as the 
ideal of Jewish holiness. According to the description of Hegesippus 
(Euseb., Hist. Eccl., ii. 23), he was by birth a Nazarite, he led an ascetic 
life, he never anointed with oil nor used the bath, he never wore woollen 
but linen clothes, he was permitted to enter into the sanctuary, and he 
prayed constantly on his knees for the forgiveness of the people, and con- 
tinued in his devotions so long that his knees became hard as camels’. 
This description may contain a few genuine traits, yet, as will be generally 


1 Weiss is wrong when he maintains (in the 
dissertation ‘‘ James and Paul’ in the Deutsche 
Ztschr. 7. christl. Wissenschaft, 5th year, 
1854, No. 51) that James was a stranger to the 
distinction between the fulfilment of the law 
from a motive of duty and from the impulse 
of a new principle, and that in this he was in 
opposition to Paul; that while, according to 
the latter, the law leads to sin and death; ac- 
cording to the view of James it produces 
righteousness and deliverance from death; and 
that he cherishes the idea, supposed by Weiss 
to be contained in the O. T., that he only can 
be declared righteous by God who is actually 
perfectly righteous. In opposition to the first 
two positions it is to be urged, that James in 
chap. ii. speaks not of the O. T. law as such, 
but of the N. T. νόμος τῆς ἐλευθερίας ; and 
against the third position, that the O. T. rec- 
ognizes distinctly a forgiveness of sins, as well 
as that James regards δικαιοῦσθαι ἐξ ἔργων as 
a work of grace, since he does not deny the 
existence of sin among true believers, and in 


ii. 11 presupposes that it is only possible to 
stand in the judgment inasmuch as that judg- 
It is to be observed that 
Weiss advances the same view of James in his 
Bibl. Theologie. 

2 Pauland James before their conversion to 


ment is merciful. 


Christ certainly occupied different positions 
with regard to the law. The former regarded 
it—conformably to his Pharisaism—as the 
means of procuring righteousness, and accord- 
ingly in his strivings he experienced it as a 
ζυγός which weighed him down: James, on 
the other hand, was certainly one of those 
pious persons to whom, in the faith of the 
covenant which God made with His people, 
the law, as the witness of this covenant, was 
the word of divine love, and therefore in it he 
had found his joy and consolation (comp, Ps. 
exix. 92, xix. 8-11). Paul found his peace, 
when he recognized himself in Christ free from 
the law; James, when he experienced in 


Christ strength to obey the law. 


10 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


admitted, it cannot be acquitted of “suspicious exaggeration” (Lange). 
The statements of the Ebionites proceed farther; in the Clementines, James 
is raised, above all the apostles, and exalted to the episcopacy of all Chris- 
tendom; indeed, according to Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx. 16), his ascension 
to heaven was a matter of narration; and Epiphanius himself thinks that 
he not only went yearly into the holy of holies, but that he also wore the 
diadem of the high priest. 


SEC. 2.—THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE. 


The contents of the Epistle prove that it was addressed to Christians. 
Not only does the author—who by the designation κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
δοῦλος plainly announces himself to be a Christian—address his readers 
throughout as his “brethren” (also as his “beloved brethren”), but in 
several places he distinctly affirms that they stand with him on the same 
ground of faith; in chap. i. 18 he says that God has begotten them 
(ἡμᾶς) by the word of truth; in chap. ii. 1 he reminds them of their 
πίστις τοῦ κυρίου Ἴ. Χριστοὺ τῆς δόξης; in chap. ii. 7 he speaks of the goodly 
name (that is, the name of Jesus Christ) which was invoked upon them; 
in chap. v. 7 he exhorts them to patience, pointing out to them the 
nearness of the coming of the Lord; and in chap. ii. 16 ff. he evidently 
supposes that they had one and the same faith with himself. Add to 
this, that if the author as a δοῦλος of Christ had written to non-Christians, 
his Epistle could only have had the intention of leading them to faith 
in Christ; but of such an intention there is not the slightest trace found 
in the Epistle, so that Bouman is completely unjustified when he says: 
vult haec esse epistola estque revera christianae religionis schola pro- 
paedeutica. Certainly the designation of the readers, found in the 
inscription of the Epistle as ai δώδεκα φυλαὶ ai ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, appears at 
variance with this view, as such a designation properly applies to Jews 
dispersed among the Gentiles beyond the boundaries of Palestine. By 
this name cannot be meant Christians in general (Hengstenberg), inas- 
much as they are the spiritual Israel (in contrast to ὁ Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα. 
1 Cor. x. 18; comp. Gal. vi. 16), and still less the Gentile Christians 
(Philippi), because it stamps the nationality too distinctly (much more 
than the expression ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι διασπορᾶς, 1 Pet. i. 1), particularly 
as nothing is added pointing beyond the limits of nationality. The 
apparent contradiction is solved by the consideration of the view of 
James; according to which the Christians to whom he wrote not only 


INTRODUCTION. 11 


had not ceased to be Jews, but it was precisely those Jews who believed 
in the Messiah promised to them and manifested in Jesus who were the 
true Jews, so that he regarded believing Israel as the true people of God, 
on whom-he could therefore without scruple confer the name αἱ δώδεκα 
φυλαί, pointing to the fathers to whom the promises were made; and, 
besides, it is not to be forgotten that the sharp distinction between 
Christianity springing up in Judaism, and Judaism called to Christianity, 
did not at first arise, but was only gradually developed by subsequent 
historical relations. Yet it is not—on account of the above adduced 
reasons — to be inferred, as Bouman and Lange assume, that the Epistle 
was not only written to the converted, but also to the unconverted 
Jews.?. The destination of the Epistle to Jewish Christians follows from 
chap. ii. 2, where the place of assembly of the congregations is called 
ovvaywy7; from ii. 19, where monotheism is prominently brought for- 
ward; from v. 12, where swearing according to forms customary among 
the Jews is forbidden; and from vy. 14, where the custom of anointing 
But, besides, all the ethical faults which the 


author reproves are of such a nature that they have their root in the 


with oil is mentioned. 


carnal Jewish disposition (Wiesinger, Schaff, Thiersch, and others). — 
The indolent reliance, prevailing in the congregations, on a faith without 
works, cannot be adduced as a feature opposed to the Jewish character; 
for in its nature it is nothing else than the’ pharisaical confidence on the 
superiority over all other nations, granted by God through the law to 
As the Jews thought that in their law they had 
a guaranty for their salvation without the actual practice of the law 


the people of Israel. 


(comp. Rom. ii. 17 ff.), so these Christians trusted to their faith, though 
defective in works.4 That in later times the Jews also placed a false 


1 The solution is unsatisfactory, that *‘ James 
writes to the Jews with whom he has access 
as a servant of Jesus Christ, and on whom as 
such he has influence.” 

2 It is true that the author directly addresses 
the rich, who were hostilely disposed to the 
Christians; but it does not follow from this 
that the Epistle was in any proper sense di- 
rected to them; it is rather to be explained 
from the liveliness with which he writes. The 
author sees those who had exposed the read- 
ers of his Epistle in a twofold manner to temp- 
tation (πειρασμός) as present before him, and 
therefore for the sake of his readers he ad- 


dresses them directly; as also the prophets 
often did in their denunciations against the 
enemies of Israel. 

8 When Briickner thinks that the descrip- 
tion of the readers as ai δώδεκα φυλαί does not 
require that they were merely Jewish Chris- 
tians, but only that they who came over to 
them from the Gentiles must have submitted 
to the ordinances of the Jewish national life, 


it is to be observed that circumcised Gentiles 


_ were no longer regarded as Gentiles, but as 


Jews. 
4 ‘What James had in view is simply a 
Jewish orthodoxy which asserted itself among 


ηἰ THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


confidence on their knowledge of God, Justin testifies when he says: 
οἱ λέγουσιν, ὅτι κἂν ἁμαρτωλοὶ wot, Θεὸν δὲ γινώσκουσιν, ob μὴ λογίσηται αὐτοῖς 
ἁμαρτίαν (Dial., p. 870, ed. col.). —It is true, it is not prominently men- 
tioned in the Epistle, that the readers were solicitous about a scrupulous 
observance of the rites of the Mosaic law; but a false estimate of an 
external θρησκεία was, according to i. 22 ff., not wanting among them, 
with which also was united, as among the Jews, a fanatical zeal (dpyf). 
— The condition of these Jewish-Christian congregations, as described 
in the Epistle, was as follows: They were exposed to manifold tempta- 
tions (πειρασμοῖς ποικίλοις), whilst their members as poor (ταπεινοί, πτωχοί) 
by reason of their faith (chap. ii. 5, 6) were oppressed by the rich. 
But they did not bear these persecutions with that patience which assures 
the true Christian of the crown of life: on the contrary, these persecu- 
tions gave rise to an inward temptation, the blame of which, however, 
they sought not in themselves, in their ἐπιθυμία, but in God. Instead 
of praying in faith for the wisdom which was lacking to them, they gave 
way to doubt, which placed them in opposition to the principle of Chris- 
tian life. Whilst they considered their ταπεινότης as a disgrace, they 
looked with envy at the glitter of earthly glory, and preferred the friend- 
ship of the world to that of God; in consequence of which, even in their 
religious assemblies, they flattered the rich, whilst they looked down 
upon the poor. This worldly spirit, conducive to the friendship of the 
world, was likewise the occasion of bitter strife among them, in which 
they murmured against each other, and in passionate zeal contended with 
violent words. ‘These contentions were not “theological discussions” 
(Reuss) or “doctrinal dissensions” (Schmid), for the Epistle points to 
none of these; but concerned practical life, especially the Christian’s 
demeanor in the world.1 As the Jews imagined that it belonged to 
them to be the ruling people of the world, to whom all the glory of the 
world belonged, so also many in these congregations wished to possess, 
even on the earth, in a worldly form, the glory promised to Christians ; 
and therefore they quarrelled with “the brethren of low degree,” who, on 
their part, were carried along in passionate wrath against those of a 


the Jewish Christians in the form of a dead, and unphilosophical author as much opposed 
unfruitful faith in God and the Messiah” as the supremacy of money and fine clothes ;”’ 
(Thiersch). _  Bince the λαλεῖν against which James contends 

1 The observation of Reuss (§ 144) is mis- has nothing to do with ‘‘systems and philoso-_ 


leading: “Τὴ supremacy of systems and phy.” 
philosophy of faith was to the simple-minded 


INTRODUCTION. 18 


proud disposition. In serving the world they certainly did not wish to 
cease to be Christians; but they thought to be certain of justification 
(δικαιοῦσθαι) on account of their faith, although that faith was to them 
something entirely external, which produced among them a fanatical zeal 
(as the law among the Jews), but not that work of faith which consisted, 
on the one hand, in τηρεῖν ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, and, on the other, in the 
practice of compassionate love. Yet all were not estranged in this 
manner from the Christian life; there were still among them disciples 
of the Lord who were and wished to be ταπεινοί : yet worldliness was so 
prevalent in the midst of them, that even they suffered from it. Hence 
the admonitory and warning nature of the Epistle to all, yet so that it 
is addressed chiefly sometimes to the one party and sometimes to the 
other, and is in its tone now mild and now severe. All, however, are 
addressed as ἀδελφοί, except the rich, who are distinctly stated as those 
who stand not inside, but outside, of the congregations to whom the 
Epistle was addressed. These faults in the congregations were the occa- 
sion which induced James to compose his Epistle. The Epistle itself 
is opposed to the opinion of Lange, that its occasion can only be under- 
stood when it is recognized that the Jewish Christians were infected by 
the fanaticism of the Jews, in which the revolutionary impulse of inde- 
pendence and revenge was united with enthusiastic apocalyptic and 
chiliastic hopes, and which was excited by the antagonism of the Gentile 
world to Judaism; in the Epistle, only in an arbitrary manner can 
references and allusions to these “historical conditions” be maintained. 

The churches to which the Epistle is addressed are, according to the 
inscription, outside of Palestine, chiefly in Syria and the far East, whilst 
in the West there were hardly any Jewish-Christian churches; yet it is 
possible that the author also included, by the expression employed, the 
churches in Palestine only outside of Jerusalem (Guericke). 


SEC. 3.—CONTENTS AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. 


The Epistle commences with a reference to the πειρασμοί which the 
readers had to endure, exhorting them to esteem them as reasons for joy, 
to prove their patience under them, to ask in faith for the wisdom which 
was lacking to them, to which a warning against doubt is annexed. To 
the rich the judgment of God is announced; whilst to the lowly, who 
endure patiently, the crown of life is promised (i. 1-12). Directly upon 
this follows the warning not to refer the internal temptations which arose 


14 THE, EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


from their own lusts (ἐπιθυμία) to God; as from God, on the contrary, 
cometh every good gift, especially the new birth by the word of truth 
(i. 13-18). To this is annexed the exhortation to be swift to hear, slow 
to speak, and slow to wrath. This exhortation forms the basis for the 
following amplifications. The first, “swift to hear,” is more precisely 
defined: to receive with meekness the word which is able to save the 
soul, in such a way as there shall be no failure in the doing of the word 
by works of compassionate love, and by preserving onc’s self from the 
world (i. 19-27). With special reference to the flattery of the rich and 
the despising of the poor occurring in their assemblies, the sin of respect 
of persons is brought before the readers, and pressed upon them: that 
whosoever shall transgress the law in one point, he is guilty of all, and 
that to the unmerciful a judgment without mercy will be meted out 
(ii. 1-13); whereupon it is strongly affirmed that it is foolish to trust 
to a faith which without works is in itself dead. Such a faith does not 
profit; for by works a man is justified, and not by faith only, as ‘also 
the examples of Abraham and Rahab show (ii. 14-26). — Without any 
transition, an earnest warning follows against the vain desire of teaching, 
which evidently refers to “slow to speak, slow to wrath.” The warning 
is founded on the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of bridling the 
tongue. Heavenly wisdom is then commended, in contrast to the wisdom 
of this world, which is full of bitter envy (iii. 1-18). The author severely 
reprimands his readers for their strifes arising from the love of the 
world; and exhorts them to humble themselves before God, and not to 
judge one another (iv. 1-12). He then turns to those who, in the pride 
of possession, forget their dependence on God, points out to them the 
fleeting nature of human life, subjoins a severe apostrophe against the 
rich, to whom he announces the certain judgment of God (iv. 13-v. 6), 
and, pointing to the Old-Testament examples, exhorts his readers to a 
persevering patience in love, as the coming of the Lord is at hand 
(v. 7-11). After a short warning against idle swearing (v. 12), the 
author gives advice as to how the sick are to behave themselves, exhort- 
ing them to mutual confession of sin, and, referring to the example of 
Elias, to mutual intercession; he then concludes the Epistle by stating 


the blessing which arises from the conversion of a sinner (v. 13-20).? 


1 On the train of thought in the Epistle, i. 19 for the construction of the Epistle is cor- 
see The Connection of the Epistle of James, rectly recognized; only the two members 
by Pfeiffer, in Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1850, βραδὺς eis τὸ λαλῆσαι and βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν are 
Pait I. In this dissertation the importance of | too much separated from each other, and ac- 


τ INTRODUCTION. 15 


This Epistle was not addressed to a single church, but to a circle of 
churches (namely, to the Jewish-Christian churches outside of Palestine or 
of Jerusalem), on which account, when received into the canon, it was 
classed among the so-called ἐπιστολαῖς καθολικαῖς, by which, however, nothing 
is determined concerning its peculiar design.!_ For, even although the 
seven catholic Epistles received this name with reference to the already 
existing collection of the Pauline Epistles, yet the opinion of Kern (Com- 
. mentary, Introduction), that the collection of these epistles under that name 
indicates an internal relationship with reference to the doctrine and tend- 
ency of Paul, is not justified. As an encyclical epistle, the Epistle of 
With 
regard to its contents, it is decidedly ethical, not dogmatic, and that not 


James considers only congregational, but not personal, relations. 


merely because it treats only of the ethical faults in the congregations re- 
ferred to, but also because it contemplates Christianity only according to 
its ethical ‘side.2 It is peculiar to this Epistle, that the gospel—the word 
of truth by which God effects the new birth, and of which it is said that it 


is able to save the soul—is designated νόμος. This νόμος, more exactly 


characterized as τέλειος ὁ τῆς ἐλευθερίας, is certainly distinguished from the 
O. T. νόμος, which only commands, without communicating the power of 
free obedience; but, at the same time, in this very designation the convic- 
tion is expressed of the closest connection between Judaism and Christi- 
anity, whilst the same νόμος βασιλικός, Which forms the essence of the law in 
Taking 
these two points together, it follows, according to the view of the author, 


the O. T. economy, is stated as the summary of this N. T. νόμος. 


that, on the one hand, the Christian by means of πίστις, which is implanted 
in his mind by the word of truth, has stepped into a new relation with God 
(and in so far Christianity is a new creation); and, on the other hand, the 
chief point of Christianity consists in this, that in it such a ποίησις is pos- 
sible, by which a man is μακάριος, and may be assured of future σωτηρία (and 
in so far Christianity is glorified Judaism). Hence the author can ascribe 


no importance to a πίστις which is without ἔργα, and hence it is natural to 


cordingly the commencement of a third divis- 
ion of the Epistle is placed at iii. 13, where, 
however, the reference to the ὀργή in the pre- 
ceding paragraph is evident. 

1 Concerning the name ἐπιστολαὶ καθολικαί, 
see Introductions to the N. T. The most 
probable opinion is, that καθολικός is synony- 
mous with ἐγκύκλιος, The reason why 1 and 


2 John are included is that they belonged to 
the First Epistle, and were appended to it. 
See also Herzog’s Real-Encyklopddie, article 
“ Katholische Briefe.” 

2 Also “186 mystical element” (Briickner, 
Gunkel) is not wanting, as appears from i. 18; 
but this is only indicated in a passing manner, 
without James further entering upon 


16 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


him to place all the importance on the épya, that is, on the works which pro- 
ceed from faith; yet he does this neither in the sense that man by his épya 
is placed in this new relation to God, for it is only in this relation that he 
can do these works, nor yet in the sense that by them he can merit σωτηρία 
or δικαιοῦσθαι in the judgment (ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαι), for James does not deny that 
the believer continues a sinner, and that therefore he can only be acquitted 
in judgment by the mercy of God. — The reticence on christological points 
is another peculiarity of this Epistle. Yet there is not wanting in it a de- 
cidedly Christian impress. This is seen in two ways: First, ethical exhor- 
tations are enforced—though not, as is often the case in other N. T. 
Epistles, by a reference to the specific points of Christ’s salvation—by a 
reference both to the saving act of regeneration by the gospel, and to the 
advent of the Lord, so that, as the foundation of the Christian ethical life 
subjectively considered is πέστις, so objectively it is the redemption of God 
in Christ. Secondly, the same dignity is attributed to Christ in this Epistle 
as in the other writings of the N. T. This is seen from the fact that the 
author calls himself a δοῦλος of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is 
here to be observed, that God and Christ are placed in juxtaposition, and 
that the same name is given to Christ as to God, namely κύριος, by which 
He is placed on an equality with God, and specifically distinguished from 
man. The circumstance that the author directly unites the divine judg- 
ment with the coming of the Lord, indeed designates the Lord Himself as 
the Judge, also points to this higher dignity of Christ. See Dorner, Lehre 
von der Person Christi, 2d ed., part i. p. 94 ff.; Kern, Komment., p. 40; 
Schmid, Bibl. Theol., part ii. 8 57,1. Nor are christological points wanting 
in the Epistle; though the fact that they are more repressed than is the case 
elsewhere in the N. T., and that specific acts of redemption, as the incarna- 
tion of Christ, His death, His resurrection, etc., are entirely omitted, forms 
a peculiarity of this Epistle which distinguishes it from all the other writ- 
ings of the N. T. The view of the author is directed less to the past than 
to the future, as this corresponds to his design, which aimed at the practical 
bearing of Christianity; see i. 12, ii. 5, 14, iii. 1, v. 1, 7,9. See, on the 
contents of the Epistle, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. des N. T., pp. 196-219.—It is 
undeniable that there is a connection between this Epistle and Christ’s Ser- 
mon on the Mount; Kern calls it a counterpart of the same, and Schmid 
(Bibl. Theol., ii. § 60) says that James had it for his model. Yet this is not 
to be understood as if the Sermon on the Mount, as transmitted by Matthew, 
was influential for the conception of this Epistle: it is not even proved that 
the author was acquainted with that writing; and not only do we find in 


INTRODUCTION. 11 


each of these two writings many references which are foreign to the other, 
but also where they coincide there is a difference of expression in the same 
thoughts. The relationship consists rather in the fact that the ethical view 
of Christianity, as seen in the Epistle, is in perfect accordance with the 
thoughts expressed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in 
His other discourses, and which, before they were reduced to writing, were 
in their original form vividly impressed on the Church by oral tradition. 
Imbued with the moral spirit of Christianity announced in these words of 
Jesus, the author of the Epistle regards Christianity chiefly as a moral life, 
so that even the person of Christ, in a certain measure, steps into the back- 
ground; just as Christ Himself, where He treats of the ethical life, is com- 
paratively silent with reference to His own person. The parallel passages 
from the Sermon on the Mount are the following: chap. i. 2, Matt. v. 10-12; 
chap. i. 4 (iva ἧτε τέλειοι), Matt. v. 48; chap. i. 5, v. 15 ff., Matt. vii. 7 ff. ; 
chap. i. 9, Matt. v. 3; chap. i. 20, Matt. v. 22; chap. ii. 18, Matt. vi. 14, 
15, v. 7; chap. ii. 14 ff., Matt. vii. 21 ff.; chap. iii. 17, 18, Matt. v. 9; chap. 
iv. 4, Matt. vi. 24; chap. iv. 10, Matt. v. 8,4; chap. iv. 11, Matt. vii. 1 f.; 
chap. v. 2, Matt. vi. 19; chap. v. 10, Matt. v. 12; chap. v. 12, Matt. v. 33 ff. 
There are also parallel passages from the other discourses of Jesus: chap. i. 
14, Matt. xv. 19; chap. iv. 12, Matt. x. 28. Compare also the places where 
the rich are denounced, with Luke vi. 24 ff. — But as these parallel passages 
do not prove the use of the synoptical Gospels, so neither is a use of the 
Pauline Epistles demonstrated.1_| The few places where the author coincides 
with the First Epistle of Peter are to be explained from an acquaintance of 
Peter with this Epistle. On the other hand, it is worthy of remark, that 
not only is there frequent reference to the expressions and historical ex- 
amples of the O. T., but that the idea ‘of the contrast, running through 
the spirit of Israel, between the externally fortunate but reprobate friend- 
ship of the world, and the externally suffering but blessed friendship of 
God? (Reuss), pervades this Epistle. — Several passages are evidently 
founded on corresponding passages in the Apocrypha of the O. T. 

As, on the one hand, the Epistle is a letter of comfort and exhortation 
for the believing brethren, so, on the other hand, it is a polemical writing; 
but its polemics are directed not against dogmatic errors, but ethical per- 
versions. Only one passage, chap. ii. 14-26, appears to combat a definite 
doctrine, and that the doctrine of justification of the Apostle Paul. But 


1 Incorrectly, Hengstenberg thinks that ii. 12, to Gal. iv.5; and chap. i. 22, to Rom. 
chap. i. 2, 3, refers to Rom. y. 3; chap. i. 25, ii. 13. 


18 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


whatever view may be taken of this, the polemics are here introduced for 
the sake of ethical Christian life, namely, only with the object of showing 
that Christians are not indolently to trust to a πίστις without works, but are 
to prove a living faith by good works, so that the proposition ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται 
ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον, is by no means employed to confute the Paul- 
ine principle, οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
in the application in which Paul made the assertion. Here, then, as every- 
where, we see that the author is a man whose attention is entirely directed 
to practical life, and who, both for himself and for others, has in view, as 
the aim of all striving, a τελειότης which consists in the perfect agreement 
of the life with the divine will, which the law in itself was incapable of pro- 
ducing, but which to the Christian is rendered possible, because God, accord- 
ing to His will, has by faith implanted His law as an inner principle of life, 
and therefore is to be aimed at with all earnestness. 

Tn recent times, the peculiar tendency of this Epistle has often been des- 
ignated as that of a Jewish Christianity. It is true that there is not the 
slightest trace of an agreement with the view expressed in Acts xv. 1: ἐὰν μὴ 
περιτέμνησθε τῷ ἔθει Μωϊσέως ob δύνασθε σωθῆναι; neither is circumcision, nor the 
ritual observances of the Mosaic law, anywhere mentioned; but the suppo- 
sition of the unity of the Old and New Testament law which lies at the 
foundation of the Epistle, as well as the peculiar importance assigned to 
ποΐησις τοῦ ἔργου, with the reticence on the christological points of salvation, 
point certainly to a Jewish-Christian author, who occupies a different posi- 
tion to the law from that of the Apostle Paul. So far, there is nothing to 
object to in this designation; only it must not be forgotten, that, apart from 
the heretical forms into which Jewish Christianity degenerated, it might 
assume, and did assume, special forms different from that presented in this 
Epistle. If, in later Jewish-Christian literature, there are many traces of a 
relationship with the tendency of this Epistle, yet there is to be recognized 
in this fact not less the definite influence of the person of the author than 
its Jewish-Christian spirit, 

As regards the style and form of expression, the language is not only fresh 
and vivid, the immediate outflow of a deep and earnest spirit, but at the 
same time sententious and rich in graphic figure. Gnome follows after 
gnome, and the discourse hastens from one similitude to another: so that 
the diction often passes into the poetical, and in some parts is like that of 
the O. T. prophets. We do not find logical connection, like that in St. 
Paul; but the thoughts arrange themselves in single groups, which are 
strongly marked off from one another. We everywhere see that the author 


INTRODUCTION. 19 


has his object clearly in sight, and puts it forth with graphic concreteness. 
“As mild language is suited to tender feeling, so strong feelings produce 
‘strong language. Especially, the style acquires emphasis and majesty by 
the climax of thoughts and words ever regularly and rhetorically arrived at, 
and by the constantly occurring antithesis,” Kern (Commentary, p. 37 f.).— 
Also the mode of representation in the Epistle is peculiar: “ The writer ever 
goes at once in res medias, and with the first sentence which begins a sec- 
tion (usually an interrogative or imperative one) says out at once, fully 
and entirely, that which he has in his heart; so that in almost every case 
the first words οὗ. each section might serve as a title for it. The further 
development of the thought, then, is regressive, explaining and grounding 
the preceding sentence, and concludes with a comprehensive sentence, reca- 
pitulating that with which he began” (Wiesinger). 


SEC. 4.—THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 


According to the inscription, the Epistle is written by James, who styles 
himself δοῦλος of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ; but this designation 15 
neither in favor of nor against the apostolate of the author. Still, it is evi- 
dent from the whole contents of the Epistle, addressed to the Jewish-Chris- 
tian churches of the Diaspora, that no other James is meant than “the 
brother of the Lord,” who is not identical with the Apostle James (see 
sec. 1). Eusebius expresses himself uncertainly concerning its authen- 
ticity; he reckons it among the Antilegomena (Hist. Eecl., iii. 25), and 
says of it: ἰστέον ὡς νοθεύεται μέν, that not many of the ancients have men- 
tioned it, but that nevertheless it is publicly read in most of the churches 
(Hist. Eccl., ii. 23). Of the ancient fathers, Origen is the first who ex- 
pressly cites it (tom. xix. In Joan. : ὡς ἐν τῇ φερομένῃ ᾿Ιακώβϑου ἐπιστολὴ ἀνέγνωμεν); 
in the Latin version of Rufinus, passages are often quoted from the Epistle 
as the words of the Apostle Jaines (ed. de la Rue, vol. ii., Hom. vili., Jn 
Exod., p. 158: “sed et Apostolus Jacobus dicit:” comp. pp. 139, 191, 644, 
671, 815). The Epistle is not mentioned in the writings of Clemens Alex- 
andrinus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; yet, according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., 
vi. 14), it was known and commented on by Clemens Alexandrinus. Diony- 
sius Alexandrinus expressly mentions it; and Jerome (Catalog., c. iii.) di- 
rectly calls James the Lord’s brother, the author of the Epistle, yet with 
the remark: quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur. It 
is of special importance, that this Epistle is found in the old Syriac ver- 
sion, the Peshito, in which are wanting the four smaller Catholic Epistles 


τ 20 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


and the Apocalypse. Guericke (Eini., p. 442) with truth remarks, “that 
this testimony is of the greater importance, as the country from which the 
Peshito proceeded closely bordered on that from which the Epistle origi- 
nated, and as that testimony was also repeated and believed in by the Syriac 
Church of the following age.” The early existence of the Epistle appears 
by many similarities to single passages in the earliest writings. The agree- 
ment which subsists between some passages of First Peter and this Epistle 
is undeniable: compare 1 Pet. i. 6, 7, with Jas. i. 2,3; 1 Pet. ii. 1 with Jas. 
i. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 8 with Jas. v. 20; and 1 Pet. v. 5-9 with Jas. iv. 6, 7, 10. 
(See author’s Comm. on First Peter, Introd., sec. 2.) That Clemens Romanus, 
in his Epist. ad Corinth., chaps. X., Xli., XVil., Xxxviii., alludes to correspond- 
ing passages in this Epistle, is not so certain as Kern (in his Commentary), 
Guericke, Wiesinger, and others assume: for, that Clemens in chap. x. 
adduces, among the pious men of the Old Testament, Abraham, referring to 
Gen. xv. 6, is not surprising, also the words ὁ φίλος προσαγορευθείς do not 
prove an acquaintance with the Epistle, as Abraham was already so called 
by Philo; his offering of Isaac is indeed mentioned, but not as an ἔργον on 
account of which he was justified. Similarly with reference to the mention 
of Rahab, of whom it is said in chap. xii.: διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώθη Ῥαάβ, 
ἡ πόρνη, Whereupon follows the history. Still less is the connection between 
chap. xvii. and Jas. v. 10, 11. It seems more certain that Jas. 111. 19 
lies at the foundation of the words in chap. xxxvili.: 6 σοφὸς ἐνδεικνύσθω τὴν 
σοφίαν αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐν λόγοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς. Some similarities to the Epistle 
likewise occur in Hermas: thus III. Sumil. 8: nomen ejus negaverunt, quod 
super eos erat invocatum (comp. Jas. ii. 7); yet here the discourse is not con- 
cerning the rich and an invective upon them. Further, the passages II. 
Mand. xii. 5: ἐὰν οὖν ἀντιστὴς αὐτὸν (τὸν διάϑολον), νικηθεὶς φεύξεται (comp. Jas. 
iv. 7); and 11. Mand. xii. 6: φοβήθητι τὸν κύριον, τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι 
(comp. Jas. iv. 12). Of greater importance than this coincidence in single 
expressions, is the fact that, with Hermas, a view generally predominates 
which agrees in many respects with that of the Epistle: Christianity is also 
with him mostly considered in its ethical sense; the christological points 
step into the background; the ‘distinction of rich and poor is strongly em- 
phasized; and in the exhortation to prayer, πίστις is expressly insisted on, 
and διψυχία (11. Mand. 9) is warned against; so that an acquaintance of the 
author of this writing with the Epistle can scarcely be denied. Also the 


1 Even Guericke admits that this passage of 91 than of Jas. ii. 25. But it is possible that 
the example of Rahab, according to its actual Clemens had neither the one passage nor the 


contents, is a reminiscence rather of Heb. xi. other in view. 


INTRODUCTION. 21 


Clementine Homilies, apart from their speculative contents, exhibit an 
acquaintance with the tendency of this Epistle. Kern has collected a great 
number of parallel passages, yet it cannot be denied that in individual cases 
both the connection and the expression of thought are different. In Ire- 
naeus (Adv. Haer., iv. 16,2) the union of the words: Abraham credidit Deo et 
reputatum est illi ad justitiam, with those which directly follow: et amicus 
Dei vocatus est, points to Jas. ii. 23; also, in Clemens Alex., Strom., vi. p. 
696, ed. Sylb., a similarity to Jas. ii. 8 can scarcely be denied; whilst the 
designation of Abraham in Tertullian (Adv. Judaeos, cap. 2) as amicus Dei 
proves nothing. Cyrill of Jerusalem (Catech., iv. 6. 33) reckons all the 
seven Catholic Epistles among the canonical writings; and since his time 
the Epistle has been unbesitatingly reckoned an apostolic writing belonging 
to the canon.? 

According to the above data, a certain dubiety undoubtedly prevailed in 
tradition, which, however, proves nothing against the authenticity, as it is 
easily accounted for from the peculiar nature of the Epistle. For, on the 
one hand, James the Lord’s brother had, it is true, obtained an apostolic 
importance, so that Paul numbered him among the pillars of the church; 
yet he was not an apostle, and the more closely the Jewish-Christian 
churches attached themselves to him, so the more estranged must he have 
become to the other churches; and, on the other hand, the Epistle was 
directed only to the Jewish-Christian churches, and the more these, by hold- 
ing to the original type, distinguished and separated themselves from the 
other churches, the more difficult must it have been to regard an epistle 
directed to them as the common property of the Church, especially as it 
appeared to contain a contradiction to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul. 
These circumstances, as Thiersch (Krit., p. 359 f.) and Wiesinger have 
rightly remarked, would hinder the universal recognition of the Epistle; 
but the more this was the case, so much the more valuable are those testi- 
monies of antiquity, although isolated, in favor of its genuineness. 

Whilst, in the Middle Ages, the canonicity of the Epistle was not 
questioned, in the sixteenth century objections to it of various kinds were 
advanced. It is well known that Luther did not regard the Epistle as 
apostolical. In his preface to it (1522) he thus expresses his opinion: 
“In my opinion, it was some good pious man who got hold of and put 
on paper some sayings of the disciples of the apostles, or perhaps 
another has made notes from his preaching.” In the preface to the 


1 Only Theodorus Mopsuestius is said to Leontius Bysantius (Contra Nest. et Eut., iii. 
have rejected it, according to the statement of 14). 


22 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


N. T. (1522) he calls the Epistle, compared with the best books of the 
N. T. (which he names as the Gospel and First Epistle of John, the 
Pauline Epistles, particularly the Romans, the Galatians, and the Ephe- 
sians, and First Peter), “a right strawy Epistle, for it has in it no true 
evangelical character.” In his sermons on the Epistles of Peter (1523), 
Luther says that one may discern that the Epistle of James is “no 
and in his Kirchenpostille (delivered in the 
summers of 1527 and 1528), he again says that it “was neither written by 


genuine apostolical epistle ;’ 


an apostle, nor has it the true apostolic ring, nor does it agree with the 
pure doctrine” (Luther’s Works, edited by Plochmann, vol. VIII. p. 268). 
So also, in a sermon on the day of Epiphany, he says, “James and Jude, 
many think, are not writings of the apostles.” The reasons with which 
Luther supports his depreciatory judgment of the Epistle, and which 
he gives in his preface to it, are the following: (1) That it “proclaims 
the righteousness of works, in flat contradiction to Paul and all other 


> 


scripture;” it is true “a gloss (or explanation) of such righteousness of 
works may be found; but that the Epistle adduces the saying of Moses 
(Rom. iv. 3), which speaks only of Abraham’s faith and not of his works, 
in favor of works, cannot be defended.” (2) That it “makes no mention 
Besides, he 


objects to the Epistle, that this James does nothing more than urge men 


of the sufferings, the resurrection, and the Spirit of Christ.” 


to the law and its works, and “confusedly passes from one subject to 
another.”’! Assuming that some passages are borrowed from First Peter, 
and that chap. iv. 5 is from Gal. v. 17, he comes to the conclusion, that 
as James was put to death by Herod before Peter, he could not be the 
author of the Epistle, but that the real author must have lived long after 


Peter and Paul.2— With the opinion of Luther agree the Magdeburg 


1 Also in the Table- Talk (Plochmann’s edi- Epistle of 1522, and in his preface to the N. T. 


tion, vol. Ixii. p. 127) the same opinion is ex- 
pressed ; ‘‘ Many have endeavored and labored 
to reconcile the Epistle of James with Paul. 
Philip Melanchthon refers to it in his Apology, 
but not with earnestness; for ‘ faith justifies,’ 
and ‘ faith does not justify,’ are plain contra- 
dictions. Whoever can reconcile them, on him 
will I put on my cap (Bareit), and allow him 
to call me a fool.” This saying, as well as the 
expression in the Airchenpostille, proves that 
Luther, even in his later years, continued firm 
to the opinion expressed in his preface to the 


of the same year; although in the later edi- 
tions of the N. T. the whole conclusion, in 
which he treats of the distinction between the 
books of the N. T., is omitted (see Plochmann, 
vol. Ixiii. p. 114). 

2 This opinion of Luther, that the supposed 
author is James the son of Zebedee, is sur- 
prising, as in the tradition of the Church of his 
own and of the preceding time, not James the 
son of Zebedee, but James-the son of Alphaeus, 
was regarded as the author; yet in some MSS. 
of the Peshito it is ascribed to the former. 


INTRODUCTION. 23 


Centuries, Hunnius, Althamer, and others; and also Wetstein.! On the 
other hand, with evident reference to this opinion, Calvin defends the 
Epistle. In his introduction to his commentary he says: Quia nullam 
ejus (epistulae) repudiandae satis justam causam video, libenter eam sine 
controversia amplector; he repudiates the assertion that the Epistle con- 
tradicts the Apostle Paul; against the reason, quod parcior in praedi- 
canda Christi gratia videtur, quam apostolo conveniat, he asserts: Non 
est ab omnibus exigendum, ut idem argumentum tractent; and he then 
gives his own judgment: Nihil continet Christi apostolo indignum; mul- 
tiplict vero doctrina scatet, cujus utilitas ad omnes Christianae vitae 
partes late patet. On the other hand, the Epistle did not remain unat- 
tacked even in the Catholic Church; not only Erasmus, but ‘also Cajetan 
(on account of the unapostolic salutation, chap. i. 1), expressed doubts 
of its apostolic origin. But neither these doubts, nor the attacks of 
Luther, deprived the Epistle of its ecclesiastical authority: on the con- 
trary, it was regarded in the Protestant not less than in the Catholic 
Church, as the work of the Apostle James the younger, who was con- 
sidered as identical with “the Lord’s brother.” — Afterwards Faber 
(Observatt. in Ep. Jac., Coburg, 1770), Bolten (Uebers. der neut. Briefe), 
Schmidt (Einl. ins N. T.), and Bertholdt advanced the untenable opinion, 
that the Epistle of James was originally written in Aramaic, and after- 
wards translated by another into Greek. De Wette, in his Introduction to 
the New Testament, asserted that the composition of this Epistle by the 
Lord’s brother — whom he also regarded as the same with James the son 
of Alphaeus— was doubtful. De Wette advances the following reasons 
for his doubts: (1) That we cannot see what should have induced 
James to write to all the Jewish Christians in the world; (2) that the 
misplaced contradiction to Paul seems unworthy of James; (3) that, if 
ii. 25 is to be regarded as a reference to Heb. xi. 31, this would betray 
an author of a later day; and (4) lastly, that it is incomprehensible that 
James should have attained to such a use of the Greek language. If 
De: Wette at a later period somewhat modified his opinion, still he 
remained true to his doubts, which he did not deny even in his EFzeget. 
Handbuch. Against these reasons it is to be observed: 1. The occasion 


1 Wetstein’s opinion is as follows: Meam ram operibus justifieationem tribuit; denique, 
sententiam nemini obtrudam, tantum dicam, Jacobus ipsa ita confundit omnia ac permiscet, 
me epistolam Jacobi non existimare esse scrip- ut mihi vir bonus aliquis ac simplex fuisse 
tum apostolicum, ob hane rationem: primo, videatur, qui arreptis quibusdam dictis discip- 
quia directe contra Paulum et omnem scriptu- ulorum apostolicorum ea in chartam conjecerit. 


oA. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


of the writing is clearly to be recognized from the Epistle itself, namely, 
the ethical faults in the churches referred to; that only the Jewish Chris- 
tians in Palestine had separate churches for themselves, is an unfounded 
assumption of De Wette. 2. The opinion of a contradiction to Paul is 
destitute of all sure exegetical reasons; see explanation of ii. 14 ff. 3. It 
cannot be proved that the example of Rahab is taken from the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. 4. It cannot be perceived why James should be less 
skilled in the Greek language than must be assumed from this Epistle. 
— When De Wette in his Ezeget. Handbuch thinks that the author has 
appropriated to himself from Paul (out of his Epistles) the free moral 
spirit, but not his contemplative believing view, and that it is very doubt- 
ful whether he ever reached such a standpoint, it is to be observed that 
such subjective suppositions form no sure basis for criticism. — Schleier- 
macher (in his Introduction to the N. T., edited by Wolde) judges of the 
Epistle even more unfavorably than De Wette. He not only agrees with 
Luther that the author “is confused,” and is destitute “of the true 
evangelical character,” but he also objects that the transitions are “either 
ornate and artificial, or awkward;” that the artificial character of the 
diction shows that the author was a stranger to the Greek language; 
that much therein is bombast. Schleiermacher, indeed, acknowledges 
that the Epistle is addressed to Jewish Christians; that possibly, in the 
section ii. 14-26, ‘“‘no reference to the Pauline theory lies at the founda- 
tion;” that, if the writing is to be placed in the eanonical period of the 
apostolic writings, it must be put at an early period, as there is no refer- 
ence to the relation between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians; that 
it indicates a view of Christianity out of which afterwards Ebionite 
‘Christianity may have arisen. But on the other hand, in opposition to 
these admissions, Schleiermacher thinks that if the Epistle belongs to the 
‘early period, it could not have been addressed to churches outside of 
Palestine; that we would expect it to have been written in Aramaic; 
‘that, considering the idea of Christianity which predominates in it 
(namely, that it is the fullest development of monotheism), we can with 
‘difficulty imagine that “this James was the same person who was the 
immediate disciple of Christ and the apostles, who afterwards became 
bishop of Jerusalem, and was so earnest (?) for the diffusion of Chris- 
itianity among the Gentiles.” — Finally, Schleiermacher arrives at the con- 
‘clusion that the Epistle is a later production and fabrication, i.e., not 
founded on fact, and not intended by its author for any particular circle 
of readers. The explanation of the origin and composition of the 


INTRODUCTION. 25 


Epistle which he most favored was, that “some one wrote it in the name 
of the Palestinian Apostle James, and collected reminiscences from his 
discourses, not in the happiest manner, and in a language which was not 
familiar to him.” This criticism wants a sure ground to rest upon, as 
much as the criticism of De Wette.— Also the recent Tiibingen school, 
in conformity with their view of the development of Christianity, have 
denied the authenticity of the Epistle. They place its origin in the 
period when the two antagonistic principles of Jewish Chrisfianity and 
Paulinism already began to be reconciled, in order to be united together 
in Catholicism. Baur, both in his Paulus (p. 677 ff.) and in his Christen- 
thum der 3 ersten Jahrhunderte (p. 96 f.), has attempted to prove that the 
Epistle belongs to a period when Jewish Christianity had already made 
an important concession in relinquishing the necessity of circumcision to 
Gentile Christianity, and that it proves itself to be a product of the 
post-Pauline period, in that it opposes δικαιοῦσθαι ἐξ ἔργων to the Pauline 
δικαιοῦσθαι ἐκ πίστεως, but, on the other hand, does not deny the influence 
of Paulinism; for, in accordance with the Pauline idea of making the 
law an inward thing, “it not only speaks of the commandment of love 
as a royal law, but also speaks of a law of liberty.” —Schwegler (Das 
nachapost. Zeitalter, vol. i. p. 413 ff.) has attempted to justify this view 
of Baur by an examination of particulars. The following are the 
reasons which he assigns for the composition of the Epistle in the post- 
apostolic period: 1. Its want of individuality; 2. The want of acquaint- 
ance of Christian antiquity with it, and its late recognition as a canon- 
ical writing; 3. The form of a mild Ebionitism which pervades it; 4. 
The internal congregational relations presupposed; 5. Its acquaintance 
with the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Gospel 
of the Hebrews. The Elionitical character of the Epistle is proved, 
(1) from the name of James attached to it; (2) from the designation of 
the readers as the δώδεκα φυλαὶ, «.7.A.. by which not the Jewish-Christian 
churches, but entire Christianity, is meant; (3) from the retention of the 
old Jewish name συναγωγῇ instead of ἐκκλησία; (4) from the statement 
of the Christian life as the fulfilling of the law, united with reticence upon 
the doctrine of the person of Christ; (5) from the relation of the Epistle 
to the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Clementine Homilies; (6) from the 
use of the Apocrypha; (7) from the polemic against the Pauline doctrine 
of justification; and (8) lastly, from the antagonism to the Gentile Chris- 
tians, who under the name πλούσιοι are put in opposition to the Jewish 
Christians, i.e., to the πτωχοῖς. The conciliating tendency seeking an 


20 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


adjustment of the antagonism is alleged to be manifest, (1) from the 
antagonism of the rich and the poor being discussed with the design of 
paving the way for an approximation of these parties by influencing the 
former (the Gentile Christians, regarded as the rich) (!), and by bringing 
about a change of sentiment in them (toward the Jewish Christians, 
regarded as the poor); (2) from there being found in the Epistle a doc- 
trinal approximation to the Pauline ideas and principles, particularly in 
the idea of the law as νόμυς ἐλευθερίας, of Christianity as a new creation, 
of πίστις as “an internal and confident apprehension of the doctrine of 
salvation,” and even in the matter of justification itself; whilst to the 
Pauline doctrine is not plainly opposed the δικαίωσις ἐξ ἔργων, but the 
δικαίωσις ἐξ ἔργων, οἷς ἡ πίστις συνεργεῖ, OY the δικαίωσις ἐκ πίστεως, ἣ τελειοῦται 
διὰ τῶν ἔργων; and (3) from the fact that by the words: σὺ πιστεύεις, ὅτι ὁ 
Θεὸς εἰς ἐστι " καλῶς ποιεῖς, the agreement of the Gentile-Christian and the 
Jewish-Christian tendencies in this principal and fundamental doctrine 
of Christianity is prominently brought forward. Schwegler has evidently 
most carefully searched out and employed all those points which can in 
any way be made to support his hypothesis; but it is perfectly clear that 
many of the points adduced by him are pure fictions, and that from 
others the most arbitrary inferences are drawn. The result is a view 
which is manifestly self-contradictory. Whilst Schwegler adopts the 
fancy that by the “rich” are meant the Gentile Christians, he subjoins 
to this the inference that the Gentile-Christian cause (i.e., the cause of 
the πλούσιοι) represents itself to the Ebionitic writer as “a proud conceit 
of wisdom,” as “loquacious controversy,” as “the love of the world and 
its lusts, covetousness, insolence, uncharitableness,” as ‘‘a false and per- 


> 


verted tendency,” and that “to attack on all sides these tendencies in 
their forms, disguises, and appearances, is the object of the Epistle;” 
but in spite of this, he says at the conclusion of the inquiry, “Thus, 
then, it is with a call to εἰρήνη that the author turns himself to the oppo- 
site Gentile-Christian faction; such is the watchword and leading practical 
thought of his Epistle.” The most glaring internal contradiction of such 
a criticism would not ‘hinder us from placing the most arbitrary fiction 
in the place of history.1 Ritschl (D. Entst. der altkathol. Kirche, p. 150 ff.) 


occupies a different position with reference to the Epistle fron: Schwegler. 


1 Reuss (§ 146, note) correctly observes: tury, and makes it grow from recent sources. 
‘* The character of the Epistle given by the Tii- That the πλούσιοι are the Pauline Christians, 
bingen criticism goes beyond every sure reason, is a postulate of this criticism for which there 
when it places it far back into the second cen- is no proof. The numerous references to the 


INTRODUCTION 27 


He asserts expressly that the similarities and points of contact between 
the Epistle and the Clementine Homilies are too vague to declare that, on 
account of them, the Epistle must be regarded as post-apostolic, or that 
a continuity of design in these writings can be discerned. He considers, 
indeed, that the Epistle belongs to the Jewish-Christian tendency, partic- 
ularly on account of its polemic against the Pauline doctrine of justifi- 
cation; but it is a matter of surprise to him, that there is in it no 
reference to the principles according to which the intercourse of Jewish 
with Gentile Christians was arranged (namely, the compliance of the 
latter with the four prohibitions expressed in the decree of Jerusalem), 
and also that the view of the Epistle is pervaded by an element essen- 
tially Pauline (namely, by the idea of the new birth; but which is under- 
stood, in a manner entirely original, as an implantation of the law). 
Thus Ritschl is constrained to confess that the Epistle, viewed on every 
side, remains as a riddle in the development of the oldest Christianity. 
This unsatisfactory result points to the incorrectness of his suppositions. 
Ritschl does not only over-estimate the importance of the decree of Jeru- 
salem in the view of James (he likewise overlooks the fact that James, 
in an Epistle addressed to Jewish Christians, had no occasion to refer to 
the necessity of keeping to the articles of that decree); but he is also 
wrong in deriving the ideas of the law and regeneration, contained in 
this Epistle, from Paul,—as if these ideas were not contained in Chris- 
tianity itself. Ritschl also, as Schwegler, maintains that chap ii. 14-26 
is not designed to combat a perversion of Pauls doctrine, and in this 
he is correct: but he assumes too hastily that «he polemic is directed 
against Paul. Ritschl’s judgment on the Epistle contains the correct 
decision, that the reasons adduced by Schwegler do not contradict its 
authenticity. Kern had already, in a treatise in the year 1835 (Tibinger 
Zeitschr.), partially adduced the same arguments against the authenticity; 
but at a later period he regarded them as unsatisfactory, and asserted 
this in his commentary in the year 1838,— of which fact Schwegler, who 
often appeals to him, takes not the slightest notice. After a careful 
review of the historical relations, Kern, in his commentary, says not only 
that the Epistle bears internal evidence that it originated rather in the 
apostolic age than in any other period, but also that he cannot but con- 
sider it as the production of him to whom it is ascribed in the inscrip- 


Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, cause the extreme simplicity and originality of 
the Gospel of the Hebrews, Hermas, Philo, this Epistle to be overlooked.” 
exist only in the imagination of the critic, and 


28 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


tion, —of James the Lord's brother, wha is called, along with Peter and 
John, a pillar of the church, and under whose superintendence the church 
of Jerusalem was placed. Kern arrived at this conclusion, even although 
he regarded ii. 14-16 as a direct attack upon the Pauline doctrine of 
justification. But this opinion is at variance with the authenticity of the 
Epistle. For, how can it be supposed that James —after he had declared 
himself on the side of Paul in the transaction at Jerusalem (Acts xv.), 
or, if the narrative of Luke regarding that transaction cannot be reck- 
oned as true, after he had given to Paul the right hand of κοινωνία 
(Gal. ii. 9)'— could’ have argued, not against an objectionable applica- 
tion of the doctrine of Paul, but against that doctrine itself? Add to 
this, that such an attack, in a writing devoted to Jewish Christians, was 
certainly not necessary in their case. It is true Kern thinks that « James . 
might consider it possible that his Epistle might come into the hands of 
Gentile Christians, with whom the Jewish Christians were at variance 
upon the doctrine:” but this is a mere arbitrary hypothesis; in the 
Epistle there is not the slightest indication that the author, in ii. 14, 
addresses others than those to whom he directed his Epistle. But if the 
polemic of the Epistle is not directed against the Pauline doctrine of 
justification, there are no reasons, either external or internal, which con- 
strain us to deny that James was the author, and to consider it as the 
production of a later period. The late recognition of the Epistle, as has 
already been remarked, is sufficiently explained from the position of the 
author and his readers: the want of personal references; from the ency- 
clical form of the Epistle; the frequent references to the Old Testament 
and to examples there represented, as well as to the Apocrypha; from 
the individuality of James, and, lastly, the facility in the use of the 
areek language from the acquaintance with the Hellenistic idiom which 
prevailed in Palestine. The organization of the Church does not here 
appear such as was only appropriate to a later period; if Paul, in his 
first missionary journey, made it a point to establish the office of presby- 
ters in the then existing Gentile churches (Acts xiv. 23), and if, at a 
still earlier period, such an office was formed at Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30), 
its existence in the Jewish-Christian churches, to which the Epistle is 
directed, cannot certainly be regarded as any thing surprising; and the 


1 Meyer, in loco, with truth observes: “ Ac- agreement, without any acknowledgment of 
cording to the representation of vy. 7-9, the the principles of Paul, would have been as 
apostles recognized the twofold divine call to little compatible with such a recognition as 
apostleship ; buta merely external and forced with the apostolic character generally.” 


INTRODUCTION. 29 


function which is here attributed to the presbyters entirely corresponds 
to the relation in which they stood to individual members of the church. 
The opinion that chap. 11. 15 refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 
chap. v. 12 to the Gospel of the Hebrews,! is any thing but certain; and 
as little is a use of the Epistle to the Romans made out from chap. i. 2 
(compared with Rom. v. 3), chap. i. 18 (compared with Rom. viii. 23), 
chap. i. 21 (compared with Rom. xiii. 12), chap. i. 22 (compared with 
Rom. ii. 13), chap. iv. 1 (compared with Rom. vii. 23), chap. iv. 4 (com- 
pared with Rom. vill. 7), chap. iv. 12 (compared with Rom. ii. 1), for 
the agreement is found here only in single expressions, which would as 
naturally present themselves to James as to Paul (comp. Briickner in De 
Weite’s Commentary, p. 188 f.). 
__in the Epistle the permanent importance for the readers of the Mosaic 


It may certainly appear surprising, that 


law, according to its ritual side, is not prominently brought forward, 
especially as James was such a careful observer of it; but this objection is 
completely removed when we consider that no doubt of that importance 
was supposed to exist among the readers. James here proceeds in the same 
manner as Christ, who, although He Himself observed the law of His 
nation, yet did not inculcate on His disciples so much the observance of 
its separate ritual enactments, as point out to them the way by which the 
law was observed in its innermost nature. Thus, then, there is no reason 
in the Epistle to assign its origin to the post-apostolic age, or to ascribe 
it to another author than to him who is named in the superscription. 
Reuss (sec. 146) with truth observes: “ His official importance gave to James 
the right to come forward as the common leader of all the Christians 
of the circumcision; and what we know or conjecture of his religious 
disposition is strikingly in unison with the contents of this Epistle.” 
The authenticity of the Epistle, in spite of the supposition of a differ- 
ence between the doctrine of justification of James and that of Paul, 


has in recent times been generally recognized.? Reuss, indeed, expresses 


1 In the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Clem- 
ent. Hom., iii. 55, xix. 2), the prohibition of 
oaths is as follows: ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ ναι vat, 
καὶ τὸ οὐ οὔ" τὸ yap περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ 
πονηροῦ ἐστιν; the second clause is in accord- 
ance with Matt. v. 37, the first with Luke v. 12. 
But this only indicates a different form of 
expression in the tradition, not the use of a 
written record. 

2 For the same reasons as those of Luther, 


the authenticity of the Epistle is denied by K. 
Strébel. In the Zeitschr. f. d. luth. Theol. of 
Rudelbach and Guericke, 1857; part II. p. 365, 
he says: ‘* Let the Epistle of James be under- 
stood as you please, it is ever in contradiction 
to the whole Sacred Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments, and therefore cannot be 
reckoned of canonical authority; with its well- 
meaning but otherwise completely unknown 
author, identical with none of the names of the 


30 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


himself very cautiously, that the genuineness of the Epistle is not raised 
above all doubt because a definite ecclesiastical tradition does not exist; 
however, he grants that nothing can be inferred from this against its 
authenticity. Other critics and interpreters have, however, expressed 
themselves more decidedly in favor of the authenticity of the Epistle, 
agreeing with one another that the authorship is to be ascribed to James, 
“the Lord’s brother,” who stood at the head of the Church of Jerusalem, 
and only differing in this, whether he is identical with (so Hottinger, 
Schneckenburger, Theile, Guericke, Lange, Bouman, and others) or differ- 
ent from the Apostle James (so Credner, Kern, Neander, Thiersch, Schaff, 
Briickner, Wiesinger, Bleek, and others). —The integrity of the Epistle 
in its separate portions has never been doubted: only Rauch (Wiener 
and Engelhardt’s Neues krit. Journal der theolog. Lit., 1827, vol. vi. part 3) 
has thought that the conclusion, chap. v. 12-20, proceeds from another 
author; but the reasons which he assigns for this have already been 
refuted by Schneckenburger (Tiib. Zeitsch. 7. Theol., 1829, part 3), Kern 
(in his Kommentar), Hagenbach (Winer’s Krit. Journ., vi. 395 ff.), and 
Theile. 


SEC. 5.—PLACE AND TIME OF WRITING. 


The place of composition is not mentioned in the Epistle; but from the 
position which James occupied to the Church of Jerusalem, and from the 
fact that he has addressed his Epistle to the churches in the Diaspora, it 
cannot be doubted that this is Jerusalem. The supposition of Schwegler, 
that the actual place of composition was Rome, requires no refutation. It 
is more difficult to determine the time of composition. It is only certain 
that it must have been before the destruction of Jerusalem; but it is a 
matter of dispute whether it was written before or after the ever-memorable 
labors of Paul among the Gentiles, or, more precisely, whether it was 
written before or after the council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts xv.! If 


there is in the Epistle a reference to the Pauline doctrine of justification, — 


N. T. persons, the capacity of teaching falls 
short of his good intention.” So also, in a 
review of this commentary (1st edition) in the 
same magazine, 1860, part I. p. 162 ff., Kahnis 
(D. luth. Dogmatik, vol. i. pp. 533-536) agrees 
with the opinion of Luther on the contents of 
this Epistle, but does not express himself on 


its authenticity. 


1 Lange infers from the political circum- 
stances which, according to his view, were the 
occasion of this Epistle, that it was composed 
‘at the latest period of the life of James, per- 
haps about the year 62.” For one who calls in 
question the supposition of Lange, this state- 
ment of time is destitute of all reason, 


INTRODUCTION, 81 


whether the attack be directed against the doctrine itself, or a perversion 
of it, then it could only be written after that transaction; as Bleek, 
among others, assumes. But on the other supposition, both opinions are 
possible. Schneckenburger, Theile, Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Schaff, 
suppose it to be composed before, and Schmid and Wiesinger after, the 
council at Jerusalem.1— The former opinion is the more probable; for 
after that time the Pauline proposition, that man is justified not ἐξ ἔργων, 
but only ἐκ πίστεως, was not only generally known, but so powerfully moved 
the spirits in Christendom, that it seems impossible to suppose that James 
could have in perfect ingenuousness asserted his principle: ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται 
ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον, Without putting himself in a definite relation 
to the doctrine of Paul, whether misunderstood or not. Wiesinger, for the 
later composition of the Epistle, appeals “to the form of the Christian life 
of the readers,” whilst, on the one hand, they are treated ‘“‘as those who 
are mature in doctrine,” and, on the other hand, “the faults censured in 
their conduct are such as can only be understood on the supposition of a 
lengthened continuance of Christianity among the readers.” But, in op- 
position to this view, it is to be observed that a Christian church without 
‘such maturity as is indicated in i. 3, ii. 5, iii. 1, iv. 1, can hardly be 
imagined; and that in Jewish-Christian churches such faults as are here 
represented in the Epistle would arise at an early period from the unsub- 
dued Jewish carnal disposition, especially as the transition to Christianity, 
particularly among the Jews, might easily occur without any actual internal 
transformation. The inquiry of Wiesinger: Where, outside of Palestine, 
before the apostolic council, shall we look for the Jewish-Christian churches 
which will satisfy the postulates of the Epistle? is of less importance, as 
it cannot be proved that Wiesinger is correct in his undemonstrated 
assertion, “that the Jewish-Christian church, precisely in the ten years 
after that council, both inside and outside of Jerusalem, obtained a great 
accession to their numbers.” That during this period it extended its limits 
is certainly to be granted, but it cannot be proved that at that period it first 
gained such an extension that James could only then write to ταῖς δώδεκα 
φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷᾳἈ: On Wiesinger’s view, that James was acquainted 
with the Epistle to the Romans, but wrote ii. 14-26 without reference to 


1 Briickner, indeed, denying the assigned James combats, comes to the conclusion that 
polemics, but supposing that the formule the Epistle indeed belongs to a comparatively 
δικαιοῦσθαι ἐκ πιστεως, Sux. ἐξ ἔργων, were first early period of the apostolic age, but is not to - 
brought into vogue by Paul, and then were used be transferred to the earliest period of apos- 
of an earlier existing habit of thought, which tolic life. 


32 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


the doctrine of Paul, James must bear the reproach of having at least acted 
very inconsiderately in using the Pauline mode of expression known to him, 
and in enunciating propositions which in form expressed the opposite of 
what Paul taught, with the design of saying something which had no 
reference to Paulinism, which contained neither an antithesis against it 
nor an agreement with it, and which was directed neither against Paul 
himself nor against Paul misunderstood. If the reasons assigned by 
Wiesinger for the later composition of the Epistle were convincing, — if, 
particularly, an acquaintance of James with Paul’s mode of thought and 
expression, and especially of his doctrine of justification, followed from the 
points of similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, or from chap. ii. 14-26, 
—it would result from this, that James in his polemics had this in view, 
and that thus Wiesinger’s denial of any reference to it is unjustifiable. Τῇ, 
then, we are not to involve ourselves in contradiction, we must in this 
denial maintain that the Epistle was composed before the apostolic council; 
and to this view nothing in the Epistle stands opposed. 


CHAP. I. 33 


> 
Ἰακώβου ἐπιστολή. 


In several codd. the superscription is more fully expressed, whilst to ἐπιστολῇ 
the word καθολικῆ is added, and to ᾿Ιακώϑου the words τοῦ ἀποστόλου, also τοῦ ἁγίου 
ἀποστόλου, and in one τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Ocod. - 


CHAPTER. I. 


Ver. 3. Instead of Rec. τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως, after A, B*, C, G, K, 8, 
etc., several vss. (Lachm., Tisch. 7), Buttm. reads, after B**, some min., etc., 
τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν without τῆς πίστεως. The addition, τῆς πίστεως, it is true, is 
suspicious, as it may be derived from 1 Pet. i. 7 (De Wette); but the testimonies 
for its genuineness are too important to declare it spurious. Instead of δοκέμιον, 
there is also the reading δοκιμεῖον, and in three min. δόκιμον. --- Ver. 7. Instead 
of ὁ ἄνθρωπος, Buttm. reads simply ἄνθρωπος, a reading which Tisch. 7 leaves 
entirely unnoticed. The same is also the case in respect of ἀδελφός, ver. 9; δὲ has 
the article in both places. — Ver. 11. B omits after προσώπου the demonstrative 
αὐτοῦ. Instead of πορείαις, A, 40, 89, 98, ed. Colinaei, read πορίαις, a reading on 
which Theile rightly remarks: “ Fumiliari librariis τοῦ εἰ et ¢ permutationi 
debetur ;’’ there is no word πορία = εὐπορία in the Greek language. Codex 30, 
apud Mill., reads εὐπορίαις evidently as an interpretation. The conjecture, 
ἐμπορίαις, which has been proposed by Hammond, Castalio, and Junius, is 
arbitrary. — Ver. 12. Instead of ἀνῆρ, A, some min. and vss. read ἄνθρωπος; an 
unnecessary change. After ἐπηγγείλατο the Rec. has ὁ κύριος, after G, K, ete. 
(instead of which some min. and vss. read ὁ Θεός; C: κύριος), which, however, 
after A, B, &, etc., is to be regarded as an insertion (Lachm., Tisch., De Wette, 
Wiesinger ; on the other hand, Theile, Reiche, Bouman, Lange, consider ὁ κύριος 
as the correct reading). — Ver. 13. δὲ alone reads ὑπό instead of ἀπό. The article 
τοῦ before Θεοῦ is, according to almost all authorities, to be obliterated as 
spurious. — Ver. 19. Instead of the Rec. ὥστε, after G, K, several min. and vss., 
B, C (: ἔστω, corrected ἴστε), several min., Vulg., and other vss. read ἔστε: A: 
ἴστε δέ: Lach. has adopted the reading ἔστε; Tisch. now (7) reads ὥστε. Whilst 
Theile, Lange (ἔστε dé), consider the reading ἔστε as the original, De Wette, 
Wiesinger, Reiche, Bouman, have rejected it from internal reasons; as, how- 
ever, on a careful consideration (see exposition), no internal reasons exist against 
its genuineness, and the external testimonies are for it, it merits the preference. 
Instead of ἔστω, Rec., after G, K, etc. (Tisch. 7), Lachm. reads ἔστω dé, after B, C, 
x. Codex A has καὶ ἔστω (Lange). — Ver. 20. The Ree. οὐ κατεργάζεται (Tisch.), 
after ΟἿ, G, K, et al. ; Lachm. has adopted οὐκ ἐργάζεται, after A, B, C***, &, et 
al.; De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, consider the compound, and Lange the 
simple verb, as the correct reading. On the distinction of these modes of 
reading, see exposition. — Ver. 22. μόνον, which the Ree., after A, C, G, K, δὰ, 


34 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


many min., places before ἀκροαταὶ, stands after it in B, some min., etc.; so read 
Lachm. and Tisch. It is possible that the reading of the most of the codd. is a 
correction, because one united μόνον, according to its meaning, with 7; still, the 
Rec. must be regarded as the original reading from authorities. — Ver. 25. Οὗτος, 
which the Rec., after G, K, many min. and vss., has before οὐκ ἀκροωτῆς (Tisch. 
7), is wanting in A, B, C, x, etc.; Lachin. has omitted it; it is difficult to consider 
it genuine, for not only is the testimony of the most weighty authorities against 
it, but also the addition from the following οὗτος is not difficult to be explained 
from the want of a connecting particle after παραμείνας: whilst De Wette 
hesitates, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange, are for its retention. — Ver. 26. After εἰ 
a δέ is found in C (Lachm.), which, however, appears to be inserted only for the 
sake of a closer connection of the verse with the preceding. The words ἐν ὑμῖν 
after εἶναι are to be obliterated, after A, B, C, 8, with Tisch., Lachm., Reiche, and 
others. — Ver. 27. Tisch., after C**, G, K, etc., has omitted the article τῶ 
before Θεῷ: the weightiest authorities, A, B, C*, νὰ, corrected, etc., however, 
are in favor of its retention (Lachm.) 


Ver. 1. Address and greeting. James calls himself a “servant of God, 
and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Oecumenius, correctly: Θεοῦ μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς, 
κυρίου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ; Some expositors have incorrectly taken Θεοῦ καὶ xvoiov to- 
gether as applied to 'Ijc, Xp. There is here no combination of the Old and 
New Testaments in this conjunction (against Lange). It is to be observed 
that in the apostolic addresses our Lord’s name is always given in full: 
ἸΙησοὺς Χριστός. -- δοῦλος is here an official appellation, which, however, be- 
longs not only to the apostles, but to every possessor of an ecclesiastical office 
received from the Lord; comp. particularly Phil. i. 1: Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος, 
δούλῳι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοὺ, and Jude 1. In this name the consciousness is expressed 
that the office is a service in which not our own will, nor the will of other 
men, but only of God or of Christ, is to be fulfilled.t— ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαὶς ταῖς 
ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ]. A designation of the people of Israel living outside of Pales- 
tine, and dispersed among the Gentiles. On, ai δώδεκα φυλαί it is to be ob- 
served, that although this appellation of the people of Israel after the exile 
does not occur in the Apocrypha, yet the people who returned were still 
regarded as the twelve tribes (1 Esdr. vii. 8, 9); as the people of the twelve 
tribes are the covenant people, to whom the promises given to the patriarchs 
refer: from which it is to be explained, that in the N. T. the number twelve 
is particularly emphasized (Matt. xix. 28; Rev. vil. 4-8, xxi. 12), and that 
James designates by this name the people to whom the promise was fulfilled. 
On τῇ διασπορᾷ, see’ Deut. xxx. 4; Neh. i. 9; Ps. exlvii. 2; 2 Mace. i. 27 
(Jer. xy. 7); John vii. 35; Winer’s Realwérterbuch, article “ Zerstreuung.” 
Whether this designation is to be understood in a literal or symbolical sense, 
see Introduction, sec. 2. Laurentius, Hornejus, Hottinger, Pott, Gebser, 
Kern, Schneckenburger, Neander, Guericke, Schmid (Bibl. Theol.), Wie- 
singer, and others correctly consider the Epistle as addressed to Jewish Chris- 
tians ; only it is to be observed that with the early composition of the Epistle 


‘| Shiver a ρα = Eee Bis : 
1 Oecumenius: ὑπὲρ πᾶν δὲ κοσμικὸν ἀξίωμα ται ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ λέγοντες καὶ ἐπιστέλλοντες 

οἱ τοῦ κυρίον ἀπόστολοι τὸ δοῦλοι εἶναι Χριστοῦ καὶ διδάσκοντες. 

καλλωπιζόμενοι, τοῦτο γνώρισμα ἑαυτῶν βούλον- 


CHAP. I. 2. 35 


- these are not here to be considered as contrasted with the Gentile Christians. 
Had the author been conscious of such a contrast, it would have been else- 
where indicated in the Epistle itself. — χαίρειν. sc. λέγει; see 1 Mace. x. 18, 
25, xv. 16; 2 Macc. i. 1; and in the N. T., Acts xv. 23, xxiii. 26 (2 John 11). 
It is to be observed that this very form of greeting, elsewhere not used in 
the N. T. Epistles, occurs in the writing proceeding from James, Acts xv. 
23 (Kern); the pure Greek form of greeting is more fully: χαίρειν καὶ ὑγιαίνειν 
καὶ eb πράττειν, 2 Mace. ix. 19. ‘ 

Vy. 2-12. Exhortation in reference to the endurance of temptations. 

Ver. 2. James begins with the hortative words: πᾶσαν χάραν ἡγῆσασθε] 
esteem it complete joy. πᾶσα χάρα, complete joy = nothing but joy. Luther: 
“Esteem it pure joy.”” Many old expositors incorrectly explain πᾶσα ΞΞ 
μεγίστη, summum, perfectum gaudium;} it is more correct to resolve the 
adjective here by the adverb πάντως, ὅλως (Carpzov), with which the explana- 
tion of Theile coincides: rem revera omnique ex parte lactam. The meaning 
is: the πειρασμοί are to you ἃ joy which is entire joy, excluding all trouble. 
See Hom., Od., xi. 507: πᾶσαν ἀληθείην μυθήσομαι, i.e., “of Neoptolemus I will 
declare to thee the whole truth” (i.e., nothing but the truth, which excludes 
all falsehood). — χαρά, a metonymy = gaudendi materia, res laeta; see Luke 
ii. 10.— It is not improbable that James by this exhortation to joy refers 
to the χαίρειν in ver. 1; comp. vv. 5, 19 (Wiesinger).— The address ἀδελφοὶ 
μου (or ἀδελφοί alone, iv. 11, v. 7,9,19; also ἀδελφοὶ μου ἀγαπητοί, 1. 16, 19, 11. 5), 
which is James’s constant form, expresses the consciousness of fellowship, 
namely, the fellowship in nationality and belief (Paraeus), with the readers.? 
-- ὅταν πειρασμοὶς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις. περιπίπτειν involvit (a) notionem adversi, 
(6) notionem inviti atque inopinati (Theile); it is synonymous with ἐφπίπτειν 
(see Luke x. 30 compared with ver. 36),*but has a stronger meaning: fo fall 
into something, so that one is entirely surrounded by it; thus in the classics it is 
particularly used of misfortune: συμφοραῖς, Plato, Leg., ix. 877 6; ζημίαις καὶ 
éveideot, Isocrates, i. 39. — By πειρασμοὶ are commonly here understood the 
θλίψεις Which are prepared for Christians on account of their faith by an 
unbelieving world (comp. Luke viii. 13: καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ ἀφίστανται ; in 
connection with Matt. xiii. 21: γενομένης θλίψεως ἣ διωγμοὺ διὰ τὸν λόγον, εὐθὺς 
σκανδαλίζεται) ; and undoubtedly James had these inview. Yet there is noth- 
ing in the context which necessitates us to such a limitation; rather the 
additional epithet ποίκιλοι justifies us to extend the idea, and to understand 
by it all the relations of life which might induce the Christian to withdraw 
from the faith, or to become wavering in it. When Lange explains πειρασμοί 
specially of “the allurements and threats by which the Gentiles on the one 
side, and the fanatical Jews on the other, and also the Ebionites, who were 
already in the field, sought to draw the readers to their side,” he founds this 
particular statement on his erroneous view of the tendency of the Epistle. 
To refer the idea only to inward temptations (Pfeiffer), is the more erroneous, 
as it is even questionable whether James had these in view at all. — On 


1 Winer (p. 101 [Z. 7., p. 111]) explains however, does not suit the context. 
πᾶσα χαρά as “all (full) joy.” This would 2 Incorrectly, Semler: Hoc nomen praeci- 
signify such a joy as wants nothing; which, pue de doctoribus intelligo. 


90 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


ποικίλοις, see 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff., xi. 23 ff. The adjective does not allude to the 
different sources from which the πειρασμοὶ sprung, but is to be referred to 
their manifold forms. In a far-fetched manner, Lange finds in ποικίλοις, 
according to its original meaning, “an allusion to the manifold-dazzling 
glitter of colors of the Jewish-Christian and Jewish temptations, in which 
they might even represent themselves as prophetic exhortations to zeal for 
the glory of God.” — Inasmuch as the Christian has to rejoice not only in the 
πειρασμοῖς, but on account of them, Oecumenius strikingly observes: τὴν κατὰ 
Θεὸν λύπην καὶ τοὺς πειρασμοὺς τούτους Kal ἐπαινετοὺς οἷδε καὶ χαρᾶς ἀξίους " δεσμὸς γὰρ 
οὗτοί εἰσιν ἀῤῥαγῆς, καὶ αὔξησις ἀγώπης καὶ κατανύξεως. . . οὗ γάρ ἐστιν ἐκτὸς γυμνασίων 
οὔτε κοσμικὼν οὔτε τῶν κατὰ Θεὸν στεφάνων ἀξιωθῆναι. With reference to joy in 
θλίψεις, see Matt. v. 11,12; Acts iv. 23 ff., ν. 41; Rom. ν. 3; also Ecclus. 
ii. 1 ff.; particularly comp. the parallel passage 1 Pet. i. 6. 

Ver. 3. γινώσκοντες]. Whilst ye may know (“in the consciousness,” De Wette). 
The participle, when closely connected with the imperative, participates in 
its meaning; see author on 2 Tim. ii. 23; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 58; Col. iii. 24, 
iv. 1; Heb. x. 34, and other passages. It is neither simply the imperative 
(Luther, “and know ye”), nor simply a confirmation, so that it may be ren- 
dered by γινώσκετε γάρ (Pott). — ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμὼν (τῆς πίστεως). 
(only here and in 1 Pet. i. 7) = τὸ δοκιμεῖον, is properly the means of proving: 
quo quid exploratur (Pott); quo rei, quae sub examen vocatur, manifestatur sin- 
cerilas eaque probatur omne id intrinseca virtule possidere, quod extrinsecus specie 
ac nomine prae se fert (Heisen): thus = κριτήριον ; so in Dionysius Halicar- 
nassus, λείου. 11: dei δὲ ὥσπερ κανόνα εἶναι καὶ στάθμην τινὰ Kal δοκίμιον ὡρισμένον 


τὸ δοκίμιον 


πρὸς ὅ τις ἀποβλέπων δυνήσεται τὴν κρίσιν ποιεῖσθαι; yet generally to the idea of 
proving is attached that of purification and verification. Theile = proba- 
mentum; thus Herodian, ii. 10, 12: δοκίμιον δὲ στρατιωτῶν κάματος ἀλλ᾽ ob τρυφῆ; 
and the LXX., Proy. xxvii. 21: δοκίμιον ἀργυρίῳ καὶ χρυσῷ πύρωσις ; comp. Prov. 
xvii. 3; Ps. xii. 7; Ecclus. ii. 5. Many expositors, as Semler, Pott, Hot- 
tinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Bouman, adhere to the import of means, 
whether of proof or of purification and verification,’ whilst they understand 
thereby the above-mentioned πειρασμοί. In this case τὸ δοκίμιον stands for 
τοῦτο τὸ δοκίμιον (Pott); but the necessity of supplying τοῦτο is decisive against 
this interpretation ; besides, δοκίμιον in 1 Pet. i. 7 cannot have that meaning. 
In that passage δοκίμιον is = the verification effected by proof; see author in 
loco: and thus it is probable that this import is also here to be retained 
(Oecumenins = τὸ κεκριμένον, τὸ δεδοκιμασμένον, τὸ καθαρόν) ; τὸ δοκίμιον then is = 
δοκιμῇ in Rom. x. 4. The distinction, that in that passage δοκιμῆ is desig- 
nated as the effect, but in this as the cause of ὑπομονῇ is not against this view, 
for, as Tirinus well says: duae res saepe sibi invicem sunt causa.2 Most expos- 
itors, both ancient and modern, however, explain δοκίμιον here by exploratio, 


1 Theile: Calamitates, quae natura sua vir- 
tutis πειρασμοὶ, eam sub examen discrimenque 
vocant, accedente demum hominis strenua 
opera ejusdem virtutis fiunt δοκίμιον eam pur- 
gantes, firmantes, commonstrantes. 

2 Wiesinger incorrectly maintains: ‘It is 


an erroneous idea that verification (τὸ δεδοκι- 
μάσθαι) produces ὑπομονὴ (so also Rauch in 
his Review); for the Christian always obtains 
more ὑπομονή, in which only he can reach the 
goal of perfection, not because he is tried, but 
because he stands the test and is thus verified.’, 


CHAP. I. 4. 37 


probatio, proof in an active sense; thus Didymus, Bede, Calvin, Laurentius, 
Beza, Piscator, Paraeus, Serarius, Paes, Hornejus, Baumgarten, De Wette, 
Kern, Wiesinger, Lange, etc. Then is valid what Bede says in reference to 
Rom. v. 4: Verborum differentia non sensuum in his sermonibus esse probatur 
Apostolorum, since there θλῖψις, here proof by θλίψις, is named as the cause 
of ὑπομονηῆ. Though there is nothing against this idea, this explanation is 
wanting in linguistic accuracy.1 The meaning is, in essentials, the same, 
whether we read τῆς πίστεως or not; for the δοκίμιον of Christians consists in 
nothing else than that of their faith, by which they are Christians. — πίστις 
is here not used objectively = id cui fides habetur, ipsa Jesu Christi doctrina 
(Pott), but subjectively, assured confidence in the gospel, whose contents 
are Jesus Christ, as the necessary foundation of Christian conduct. — κατερ- 
yaterat ὑπομονῆν]. κατεργάζεσθαι is distinguished from ἐργάζεσθαι in that it ex- 
presses the actual accomplishment (Meyer on Rom. i. 27). — ὑπομονή is faithful 
endurance (μένειν) under (ὑπό) the temptations (πειρασμοῖς). Baumgarten: 
“enduring constancy ;” Theile: “steadfastness,” perseverantia, quod majus est 
quam patientia.2, The importance of ὑπομονή for Christians is evident from 
Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13; comp. also Jas. v. 7 ff. On the connection of ὑπομονῇ 
with ἐλπίς, see Cremer under the words ἐλπίς and ὑπομονῆ. 

Ver. 4. The verification of faith effected by the πειρασμοί produces ὑπομονῆς, 
and on this account temptations should be to the Christian an object of joy, 
as it depends on them that ὑπομονῇ is of the right kind. This is indicated 
in this verse. — 4 δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω. The emphasis is not placed 
on épyor,— that ὑπομονῇ has an ἔργον is understood of itself, — but on τέλειον 
(Wiesinger). James wishes that the ἔργον of ὑπομονῇ among Christians be 
τέλειον, in order that they may be τέλειοι : as he, moreover, strongly empha- 
sizes τέλειον εἶναι. In explaining the thought, De Wette confounds the 
abstract (ὑπομονή) with the concrete (ὁ ὑπομένων), and understands by ἔργον 
τέλειον “the active virtue which the patient man must perfectly have.” This 
explanation of De Wette agrees in essentials with the explanations of Eras- 
mus, Calovius, Morus, Pott, Augusti, Gebser, Kern, Schneckenburger, accord- 
ing to which ἔργον τέλειον is distinguished from ὑπομονῇ, and the moral activity 
which the Christian has to exercise with his ὑπομονή indicated. Thus Eras- 


1 Cremer (see δοκίμιον) is hardly right when tatis aut utilitatis causa rerum arduarum ac 


he maintained that ‘‘the means of proof are 
not only, e.g., the touchstone itself, but also 
the trace of the metal left thereon, therefore 
τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως (Jas. i. 3) is the result 
of the contact of πίστις with πειρασμοῖς ; for 
we are to consider the πειρασμοὶ not as a 
touchstone, but as a test by fire. However, 
Cremer explained the whole idea correctly 
by ‘‘ the verification of faith.’’ His remark 
on δοκιμή is to be noted: that in it we are not 
to distinguish between the active and passive 
signification; that it has rather a reflex sense, 
either the having proved true or the proving 
true. 

2 Cicero, De Inv., ii. 54: Patientia est hones- 


difficilium voluntaria ac diuturna perpessio; 
perseverantia est in ratione bene considerata 
stabilis et perpetua permansio. Schnecken- 
burger strikingly observes: Si submissionem 
(τὸ ὑπό. . .) urgeas, patientiam ac tolerantiam 
malorum, sin τὸ μένειν, constantiam et firmi- 
tatem, perseverantiam ac calamitatum feren- 
darum fortitudinem ab illecebris desciscendi 
inconcussam hoe vocabulo habebis expressam. 

3 Oecumenius rightly observes: σκόπει οὐκ 
εἶπε THY ὑπομονὴν ὁριστικῶς, OTL ἔργον τέλειον 
ἔχει, ἀλλὰ προστακτικῶς ἐχέτω" οὐ γὰρ προῦ- 
ποκειμένην ἀρετὴν ἐξαγγέλλεϊ, ἀλλὰ νῦν ἐγγινο- 
μένην, ὡς χρὴ γίνεσθαι νομοθετεῖ. 


98 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


mus: quemadmodum in malis tolerandis fortis est et alacris, ita in bonis operibus 
exercendis sibi constet. Pott: perseverantiae fructus sit perfectum virtutis stu- 
dium. ‘This interpretation is, however, incorrect; it not only gives rise to 
unjustifiable changes of meaning, as that of ὑπομονῇ into ὁ ὑπομένων, or of ἐχέτω 
into παρεχέτω (Pott), or into κρατείτω (Schulthess), but gives also a thought 
which with the following iva, «.7.4., would be tautological. Most expositors 
(even Briickner,! in opposition to De Wette) refer ἔργον τέλειον to ὑπομονῆ 
itself ; ἔργον = work, realization (Wiesinger) ; comp. 1 Thess. i. 3: τὸ ἔργον τῆς 
πίστεως ; for the ὑπομονῇ of the Christian is not only a suffering, but even more 
a doing. This doing is to be τέλειον, that is, not only, as many interpreters 
explain, enduring to the end,? but complete, and that not only in respect of its 
internal condition, —so that it is wanting in no essential points of true ὑπομονῇ 
— but also in respect of its activity (Lange), so that it in no way yields to 
the πειρασμοῖς, which yielding occurs when a man by the temptations is deter- 
mined to something which does not correspond with the principle of faith. 
Bouman: Haee ὑπομονῇ consummatum opus habet, quando ita se gerit, in quo 
habitat, homo, ut wniversam per vitam et animum et linguam et pedes regat ac 
moderetur. That ὑπομονή in this manner has an ἔργον τέλειον, is necessary, in 
order that Christians may be perfect and entire, which, as Christians, they 
should be. This James indicates in the following words: iva fre τέλειοι καὶ 
ὁλόκληροι. iva is not here ἐκβατικῶς (which Baumgarten and Pott regard as 
possible), but τελικὼς, in order that. De Wette and Wiesinger incorrectly 
refer it to the future judgment. — τέλειοι and ὁλόκληροι are Synonymous terms: 
τέλειος is properly “that which has attained its aim,” ὁλόκληρος “that which 
is complete in all its parts, is entire.” Both expressions are found in the 
LXX. as the translation of ὉΠ (Gen. vi. 9; Ezek. xv. 5); besides this 
verse, ὁλόκληρος in the N. T. only occurs in 1 Thess. v. 25 (ὁλοκληρία, Acts 
111. 16).4 It is true that both τέλειος (in the LXX. and in the classics) and 
ὁλόκληρος (particularly in Philo, but not in the LXX.) are used with special 
reference to sacrifice; to which, however, there is here no allusion (against 
Kern). Still more arbitrary is the interpretation of Storr: qui superiores e 
certamine discedebant. —év μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι]. The negative expression added 
for strengthening the two positive expressions; as in ver. 5: ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ 
ὀνειδίζοντος, and in ver. 6: ἐν πίστει, μηδὲν διακρινόμενος. AS regards the expres- 
sion itself, ἐν μηδενί is not to be taken, with De Wette, as a supplement to 
λειπόμενοι, as the supplement to this verb is always in the genitive; therefore 
the expression has been correctly translated by Wiesinger and in this com- 
mentary, not by wanting nothing, but by wanting in nothing (which Lange 


1 «Nothing else can be meant than the per- 
fect work of endurance, particularly as differ- 
ent stages of this are conceivable.” 

2 Luther: ‘‘ Patience is to continue stead- 
fast to the end.” Calvin: Haec vera erit pa- 
tientia, quae in finem usque durabit. Similarly 
Jerome, Serarius, Salmero, Estius, Gomarus, 
Piscator, Paraeus, Hornejus, Carpzov, Semler, 
Hottinger, ete. 

5. Lange here arbitrarily understands by 


ἔργον τέλειον specially: ‘the unreserved ac- 
knowledgment of their Gentile-Christian breth- 
ren, the open rupture with Jewish pride of 
faith and fanaticism.”’ 

4 A limitation of this idea to moral perfec- 
tion is not required by the context. Lange has 
the following strange remark: ‘* The Jew was 
a symbolical κλῆρος of the household; as a 
Christian he was to become a real κλῆρος, and 
thus ὁλόκληρος.᾽ 


CHAP. I. ὅ. ~» 89 


has overlooked). The question, however, occurs, can λειπόμενοι be explained 
as = wanling? This idea is not contained in the verb by itself, and therefore 
can hardly be attributed to it when it stands absolutely, as here. It is there- 
fore safer to take λείπεσθαι in its usual meaning, and thus, with Lange, to ex- 
plain λειπόμενοι by coming short of, namely, short of the goal marked out to 
the Christian. It is incorrect, with Pott, to say: tota loquendi ratio ab iis qui 
cursu.. . . relinquuntur et separantur (so also Lésner, Krebs, Storr, Augusti) ; 
for although the verb in classical writers has often this reference, yet there is 
here no mention of a relation to others, and accordingly the appeal to Poly- 
bius, p. 1202, ed. Gronov. : ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ρωμαίους εὐνοίᾳ παρὰ πολὺ τἀδελφοῦ λειπύμενος, 
does not suit. According to the meaning here given, λειπόμενοι forms a strong 
contrast to τέλειοι. 

Ver. 5. εἰ δέ τις ὑμὼν λείπεται σοφίας, is chiefly connected with ἐν μηδενὶ 
λειπόμενοι. εἰ is not = quoniam, quandoquidem (Estius, Laurentius), but the 
thought is hypothetical; εἰ τις = ὅστις; see Wahl on the word εἰ, --- λείπεται 
σοφίας is to be explained as κτεάνων λειφθεὶς καὶ φίλων, in Pindar i. 2, 11, ** with- 
out wealth and friends,” properly, “left behind of, or falling short of;” 
accordingly, without wisdom. Usually the meaning wanting, lacking, is given 
to Aeixouat, Which, however, is not linguistically justified. James by σοφία, as 
Wiesinger correctly observes, does not mean “an arbitrary part of Christian 
perfection,” but the essential foundation of Christian conduct, τὸ αἴτιον τοὺ 
τελείου ἔργου (Oecumenius) ; for σοφία is here the /iving insight, rooted in the 
πίστις, i.e., the insight compelling to action in what is the Christian's duty, 
both in whole and in its particular parts, especially in the πειρασμοὶς (ver. 2) 
(comp. the praise of wisdom in the Proverbs of Solomon, in the Wisdom of 
Solomon, and in the Book of Ecclesiasticus). Wisdom can only be given 
by God (κύριος δίδωσι σοφίαν καὶ ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοὺ γνῶσις καὶ σύνεσις, Prov. 11. 6), 
and as ἃ divine χάρισμα it has an impress definitely distinguishing it from 
the wisdom of the world; see chap. iii. 15, 17.1. The connection does not 
constrain us, with Bouman and others, to conceive the idea of σοφία only in 
reference to the zepacuoi (ver. 2), and to understand by it only the doctrine 
concerning the Christian conduct in the πειρασμοῖς, expressed in ver. 2,? or 
that conduct itself. The idea of σοφία is rather to be understood in its 
completeness (Theile, De Wette, Kern, Wiesinger). The reason why James 
here mentions it is because it was especially necessary to the Christian in 
his πειρασμοῖς ; Briickner: “James thinks here of wisdom (in itself of a more 
general acceptation), inasmuch as it is necessary rightly to estimate and 
rightly to resist the trial, in order that it might not be converted into an 
internal temptation, instead of being the path to perfection.” ὃ --- αἰτείτω παρὰ, 
x.t.4.: the same construction in Matt. xx. 20; Acts iii. 2; 1 John v. 15.— 


est, petite a Domino, ut vos Spiritu suo illu- 
minet. 
3 Lange, indeed, defends the explanation of 


1 The Etymologicum magnum thus gives 
the distinction between σοφία and γνῶσις: 
γνῶσις μέν ἐστι τὸ εἰδέναι τὰ ὄντα" σοφία δὲ Kat 


τὸ τὰ ὄντα γινώσκειν, καὶ τὸ τὰ γνωστὰ πράτ- 
τειν. 

2 Calvin: Sapientiae nomen ad circumstan- 
tiam praestantis loci restringo, acsi diceret: 
si haec doctrina ingenii vestri captu altior 


Calvin, but he interprets the idea of σοφία dif- 
ferently from Calvin, defining it as “the right 
perception of the signs of the times, and of the 
christological fulfilment of the theocracy in the 
church as well as in the faith of individuals.” 


40 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


τοῦ διδοντος Θεοῦ, instead of τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ didovroc, as Codex A reads. By the 
selected order of the words here, not only is the idea of giving emphatically 
placed near to the request, but also the participle almost becomes an attribu- 
tive adjective; God is indicated as the Giver absolutely. Accordingly — 
as Baumgarten, Gebser, and others, correctly remark — no definite object as 
τὴν σοφίαν (Bouman) is to be supplied. — πᾶσιν and ἁπλῶς are added as a more 
detailed statement; τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν is, from the context, to be supplied to πᾶσιν 
(Calvin, Estius, Piscator, Laurentius, etc.); or, better still, oi¢ δίδωσι. The 
adverb ἁπλῶς, only here in the N. T., is either to be understood as an ethical 
additional statement of διδόναι = ἐν ἁπλότητι (Rom. xii. 8) (so Pott, Hottinger, 
Kern, Theile, Bouman, uncertainly Wiesinger), or = simply, without further 
ceremony (so De Wette).! In the latter case it is prominently brought for- 
ward that God in the giving had only this in view. It is incorrectly ren- 
dered benigne (Bede, Vorstius, and others), affluenter (Erasmus, Grotius, and 
others), or as equivalent to συντόμως, καθάπαξ (Hesychius). By μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος 
—as καί shows — ἁπλῶς is not more closely defined, but a new point in the 
mode of the divine giving is added, and so that He does not reproach him to 
whom He gives, does not abuse him. ὀνειδίζειν is generally taken in the more 
special sense of upbraiding (Luther: “and upbraideth no man”); for which 
the expression in Demosthenes is appealed to: τὸ τὰς idiac εὐεργεσίας ὑπομιμ- 
νῆσκειν καὶ λέγειν μικροῦ deiv ὅμοιόν ἐστι τῷ ὀνειδιζειν ; still more surely does Plu- 
tarch, De Aud., 33, speak for this meaning: πᾶσα ὀνειδιζομένη χάρις ἐπαχθῆς καὶ 
ἄχαρις; also in Ecclus. xviii. 18, xx. 15, xli. 22, the word appears to have 
this more special reference.? Still, there is no proof that James did not take 
it in its more general sense. Semler: non tantum significat molestam commemo- 
rationem beneficiorem, sed etiam qualemcunque reprehensionem (so also Schnecken- 
burger, De Wette).? It is incorrect to explain ὀνειδίζειν as equivalent to 
aliquem ignominose cum repulsa dimittere (Morus, Zachariae, Carpzov, Storr, 
Augusti, Stolz, Hottinger); the refusal of a petitioner may be considered as 
a καταισχύνειν Of the same, but ὀνειδίζειν never occurs in this sense, not even in 
Ecclus. xx. 15. The reason why James subjoins the particular statement 
ἁπλῶς, x.7.4., is by it to encourage to αἰτεῖν (Zwinglius: ut mentes alliciat, ut ad 
hune unum in omni necessitate adcurrant); perhaps also with “a side glance 
to the rich”’ (ver. 10, chap. v. 9 ff.), who do not give ἁπλῶς, and when they 
do give, give only ὀνειδίζοντες (Wiesinger). —xai δοθήσεται αὑτῷ, impersonal : 
“it shall be given him;” namely, what he asks; here, wisdom. It is erro- 
neous directly to supply 7 σοφία to δοθήσεται as the subject (Lange), because 
James here evidently wishes to einphasize the relation of the giving to the 


1 Both of these explanations come essen- 
tially to the same thing, for ‘‘ he that giveth 
with simplicity will simply give; it will be a 
pure, unmingled giving, without any admiz- 
ture”? (Stier). Lange, without reason, main- 
tains that in this commentary amA@s will refer 
not to the giving, but to the gift. 

2 In this sense exprobare is used in Latin, 
e.g., Cicero, De Amic.: Odiosum sane genus 
bominum oflicia exprobantiur. 


8 Eustathius: ὀνειδίζειν οὐ μόνον τὸ evepye- 
ἀλλα 
καὶ ἁπλῶς ἀνοστά τινα καὶ ἐπίμομφα λεγειν. 
The assertion of Lange is unfounded, that 
James, according to this exposition, would 
utter an untenable sentiment, ‘‘ because God, 
notwithstanding those who ask, often inflicts 
injuries on men.” Lange has not considered 
that the passage treats only of asking. 


σίας ἀναφέρειν τοῖς εὐεργετημένοις ... 


CHAP. I. 6. 41 


asking, and accordingly the object is suppressed; comp. on this thought 
particularly 1 Kings iii. 9-12 (2 Chron. i. 10-12). 

Ver. 6. A more particular statement how prayer must be made: αἰτείτω 
δὲ ἐν πίστει. With αἰτείτω the αἰτείτω in ver. 5 is resumed; δὲ indicates the 
carrying-out of the thought. — The prayer, if it is to be heard, must be a 
εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως, Chap. v. 15 (comp. Ecclus. vii. 10: μὴ ὀλιγοψυχῆσῃς iv τῇ προ- 
σευχῇ cov).—év πίστει: that is, in the confident assurance of being heard; on 
what this is founded, is not here expressed. The explanation of Calvin: 
“fides est quae Dei promissionibus freta nos impetrandi, quod petimus, certos 
reddit ” (similarly Baumgarten), expresses what is in itself true, but is not 
here indicated by James. Some ancient commentators incorrectly supply to 
πίστει as a more definite statement ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ---- The object of the prayer 
(namely, τὴν σοφίαν) is not here named, where only the necessary condition of 
prayer is treated of. ‘The remarks made by many expositors on the manner 
in which the Christian should ask for external good things are here inappro- 
priate. — μηδέν διακρινόμενος expresses the same idea as ἐν more, only in a 
negative form; μηδὲν is here, as frequently, adverbial = on no account, nulla 
ralione. διακρίνεσθαι is, according to N. T. usage, to doubt ; compare, besides, 
Acts x. 20, xi. 12; particularly Matt. xxi. 21: ἐὰν ἔχητε mori, καὶ μὴ διακριθῆτε; 
Rom. iv. 20: ob διεκρίθη τὴ ἀπιστίᾳ; Rom. iv. 23; it is not = ἀπιστεῖν (Luke 
xxiv. 21); or ἀπειθειν (John 111. 36), but includes in it the essential character 
of amoaria; while πίστις says “ Yes” and ἀπιστία “ No,” διακρίνεσθαι is the con- 
junction of “ Yes” and “No,” but so that “No” has the preponderance; it 
is that internal wavering which leans not to πίστις, but to dmoria.1 — The fol- 
lowing words, ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος, x 7.A., are annexed to the preceding διακρινο- 
μενος; more clearly explaining it (in figurative language) with reference to 
the exhortation aiteitw, κιτ.λ.; but the reason of this exhortation is given 
in ver. 7. The first yap, accordingly, has the meaning of namely, whereas 
the second has that of for. According to this interpretation, the relation 
of the thoughts expressed in vv. 6 and 7 is more correctly recognized than 
when we say that the first yap assigns the reason why we should pray noth- 
ing doubting, but that this thought is only brought to a conclusion in ver. 7 
(Wiesinger, and so in the earlier edition of this commentary, where it is 
said that the sentence taken together would read: ὁ yap διακρινόμενος, ἐοικὼς 
κλύδωνι... μὴ οἰέσθω, ὅτι λήμψεταί τι, κ.τ.λ.). Lange incorrectly supposes that 


1 The deep-lying ground of it is pride, and 
so far Theophylact is right in saying διακρι- 
vouevos δὲ ὃ μεθ᾽ ὑπεροψιας αἰτῶν, ὑβριστὴς 
ὁμολογουμενως, ὃ διακρινόμενος ; Whereas Vecu- 
menius, in the words λέγων ἐν σεαυτῷ, ὅτι πῶς 
δυναμαι αἰτησαΐ τι παρα τοῦ κυριον και λαβεῖν, 
ἡμαρτήκως τοσαῦτα εἰς αὑτόν, brings out a point 
which belongs not to διακρίνεσθαι, but to a yet 
weak faith. Comp. with this passage Hermas 
ii 9: *tolle a te dubitationem et nihil omnino 
dubites petens aliquid a Deo.”” As weak faith 
is to be distinguished from διακρίνεσθαι, 80 
also is the doubt, of which the believer is con- 
scious as a trial. Calvin strikingly remarks: 


“Fieri quidem non potest in (hac) carnis in- 
firmitate, quin variis tentationibus agitemur, 
quae sunt veluti machinae ad labefactandam 
nostram fiduciam : ita nemo reperietur, qui non 
sensu carnis suae vacillet ac trepidet. Sed 
oportet ejusmodi tentationes fide tandem supe- 
rari, quemadmodum arbor, quae firmas radices 
jecit, quatitur quidem venti impulsu, sed non 
revellitur, quin potius suo loco stabilis manet.” 
— Whilst the διακρινόμενος, according to the 
proper meaning of the term, will not believe, 
itis the longing of the tried to be confirmed 
in the faith. 


42 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 

the first γάρ has a more limited meaning, whilst it declares the διακρινόμενος as 
incapable of praying aright; whereas the second γάρ refers in a wider sense 
‘to the unbelieving condition of ‘the man to God, and therefore is to be ren- 
dered by also. —éotxe. Only here in the N. T. and in ver. 23. — κλύδων θαλάσ- 
onc. Only here in the N. T. and in Luke viii. 24 (κλύδ. τοῦ ὕδατος); usually 
κῦμα. The verb κλυδωνίζεσθαι occurs in Eph. iv. 14; Isa. lvii. 20, LXX. The 
point of comparison is contained in the subjoined words: ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζο- 
μένῳ. The verb ἀνεμίζεσθαι is entirely an ἅπαξ Aey., occurring nowhere else, 
equivalent to ἀνεμοῦσθαι, found in classical language (see Hegesippus 6: ἁλὸς 
ἠνεμωμένης) = agitated, i.e, agitated by the wind. The verb ῥιπίζειν (only 
here in N. T.) is also elsewhere used to denote the agitation or excitement 
of water by the wind. Heisen incorrectly explains ῥιπιζεσθαι as equivalent 
to calefieri et accendi,; the word never has this meaning, although used of the 
kindling of fire.2 The two expressions (which Lange incorrectly denies) 
are synonymous, and are placed together only for the sake of strengthening 
the idea. The opinion that ἀνεμιζ. refers to agitation coming from without, 
and ῥιπιζ. to agitation coming from within (Bengel), is without foundation ; 
also the assertion that the former word denotes the cause, and the latter the 
effect (Theile, Wiesinger), is not entirely correct, as ἀνεμίζεσθαι itself expresses 
the effect.— By this image the mind of the doubter is characterized as un- 
steady and wavering, to which a calm and sure rest is wanting.2 Comp. 
Isa. lvii. 20,21, LXX.: οἱ δὲ ἄδικοι κλυδωνισθήσονται καὶ ἀναπαυσασθαι οὐ δυνήσονται, 
οὐκ ἔστι χαίρειν (οἷ) τοὶς ἀσεϑεσιν., . 

Ver. 7. μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω. On yap, see ver. 6; it is neither the simple par- 
ticle of transition (Pott), nor equivalent to ergo (Calvin), nor is it to be 
explained, with Winer (E. T. 558), according to its derivation from ye and 
dpa, by thus indeed, but is the reason for the exhortation in ver. 6; hence, 
for. — The warning: μὴ οἰέσθω, supposes the fancy of the doubter, that he 
will receive something from God in answer to prayer; similarly Matt. iii. 9: 
μὴ δόξητε. ---- ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος refers back to ὁ dtaxptvouevoc. Although not in 
ἐκεῖνος (in itself), yet in the whole mode of expression, there is something 
disparaging. — By Ajuperas,® instead of δοθήσεται (ver. 5), is not intended to 
be indicated, that the fault of not being heard lies not with God but with 


1 See Dio Chrysostom, xxxiii. p. 368 Β᾽ 
δῆμος ἄστατον κακον και θαλάσσῃ πανθ᾽ ὅμοιον, 
um ἀνεμου ῥιπίζεται ; Philo, De Mundo: πρὸς 
ἀνέμον ῥιπιζεται To ὕδωρ, 

3 Theile correctly rejects this explanation, 
saying: “Hoc, quamquam undae spumantes 
ventis revyera incalescunt Latinisque etiam 
ebullire aestusque dicuntur, longius tamen 
petitum est.’? — The verb pumiGecy comes either 
from ῥιπις = (1) follis (a bellows) ; flabelium, 
having the meaning both of kindling (the fire) 
and of fanning (for the sake of cooling); or 
from pi7y = vibration, which is also used of 
wind; thus pin Bopeao, J/., xv. 171; ριπαὶ 
ἀνέμων, Sophocles, Ant. 137; also ῥιπή = storm, 
Pind. P. 1x. 49. he original import of the 


German verbs schwingen, bewegen, is thus en- 
tirely equivalent to avewrceuv. 

3 « A doubtful petitioner offers not to God 
a steady hand or heart, so that God cannot de- 
posit in it his gift”? (Stier). 

4 Lange supposes that James has used these 
expressions with a conscious reference to the 
O. T. symbols, according to which the sea is 
**the emblem of the national Ife, agitated 
hither and thither in pathological sympathies,” 
whilst in his time ‘these waves of the sea” 
had already begun to roar. 

5 The form λήμψεται, for which MS. au- 
thorities decide, is not classical Greek; the 
Tonic form is λάμψομαι. 


CHAP. I. 8. 43 


man: rather, he receives not, because God gives not. — ri naturally refers to 
what the doubter asks; thus scil. αἰτουμένων. The definite object (wisdom) 
above spoken of is not here meant; for the particular thought is founded 
on a general declaration. By κύριος Christ is not to be understood, but, as 
in chap. iv. 10, v. 4, 10, according to O. T. usage, God. — The designation 
of God as the Lord naturally suggested itself to James, because he was 
here speaking of the power of God manifested in giving or not giving: it is 
not, as Lange thinks, chosen in order to characterize God as “Jehovah the 
living covenant-God, who has now fully manifested Himself in Christ.” 
Ver. 8 contains neither the subject to λήμψεται (Baumgarten), nor is it 
to be understood as an exclamation = vae homini inconstanti (Pott). Many 
expositors consider ἀνὴρ δίψυχος as the subject and ἀκατάστατος the predicate, 
wanting the copula (Luther: “a doubter is unstable;” so Calvin, Schneck- 
enburger, De Wette, Lange, and others); but according to this construction 
the idea δίψυχος falls too much into the background, and also the train of 
thought would be too unconnected. It is better to take both ἀνὴρ δίψυχος 
and ἀκατάστατος, x.7.2., aS in apposition to ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. It is true that 
the character of the doubter has already been given in ver. 6 by ἔοικε, «.7.2., 
but, on the one hand, only figuratively, and, on the other hand, without 
giving prominence to his ethical character, which James now introduces in 
order strongly to confirm the thought expressed in ver. 7; which exposition 
is far from being ‘“‘a feeble tautology” (Lange). Less stress is to be put 
on the want of the article (Schneckenburger, De Wette), as it would be 
here hardly suitable. Correctly Winer, p. 497 [E. T. 534]: “he, a double- 
minded man;” so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Bouman, and others. Only 
according to this construction is the full meaning given to the idea dipvyor. 
The word is not to be taken merely as another expression for διακρινόμενος 
(Luther, Beza, Grotius, Cremer, and others; Luther directly renders it “a 
doubter”), but it characterizes the inward nature of the doubter. Accord- 
ing to the mode in which δισώματος, δικάρδιος, δίγλωσσος, and similar words are 
formed, δίψυχος (which occurs neither in the classics nor in the LXX. and 
the Apocrypha, but besides here only in chap. iy. 8, and the Church Fathers) 
properly denotes having two souls: it thus describes the doubter as a man 
who has, as it were, two souls contending against each other, one of which 
is turned to God, and one of which is turned away from God (thus to the 
world) ; who, accordingly, will be at the same time φίλος τοῦ Θεοῦ and φίλος 
τοῦ κόσμου, although φιλία τοῦ κόσμου is ἔγθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ (chap. iv. 6).1 This 
double-mindedness (or, what is the same thing, division of soul) expresses 
the wavering to and fro, between πίστις and ἀπιστία generally, so particularly 


1 Oecumenius limits the idea too specifically i. 189; and frequently, διάνδιχα θυμὸν ἔχειν, 


to a care divided about the present and the 
future: 
ἀστήρικτον λέγει, τὸν μήτε πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα 
παγίως, μήτε πρὸς τὰ πάροντα ἀσφαλῶς ἡδρασ- 
μένον, ἀλλὰ τῇδε κακεῖσε ἀγόμενον καὶ περιφε- 
ρόμενον, καὶ ποτὲ μὲν τῶν μελλόντων, ποτὲ δὲ 
τῶν παρόντων ἀντεχόμενον. In the classics, re- 
lated ideas are διάνδιχα μερμερίζιεν, Hom., 77.» 


δίψυχον ἄνδρα τὸν ἀνεπέρειστον, Tov 


Hesiod, 0., 13; ψυχὴ ἀνάρμοστος, Phaed., 93 
c. (Opp. ψυχὴ ὁμονοητική, Pl. Resp. viii. 554), 


etc. In the Hebrew, 3) 353, so in 1 Chron. 
xii. 33, where 2) δ ὙΡ is equivalent to 
pow 3353; ver. 38; that expression has an- 


other meaning in Ps. xii. 3. 


᾿ 


44 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


also in prayer.1— δίψυχον εἶναι is to be understood neither as the reason 
(Wiesinger) nor as the result (Lange), but as the characteristic nature, of 
διακρίνεσθαι. ---- The word ἀνήρ is here as in Matt. vii. 24; Ps. xxxii. 2, LXX. 
Lange thinks that James used it because the dangers of which he warns 
them are more especially the dangers which threaten the men among the 
Jews. — As a second apposition James adds: ἀκατάστατος ἐν πασαῖς ταῖς ὅδοις 
αὐτοῦ; for, where there is a want of unity in the internal life, it is also want- 
ing in the external conduct. The δίψυχος, being actuated sometimes by one 
impulse and sometimes by another, is unsteady and inconstant in his inten- 
tions and actions (ἐν ταὶς ὅδοις αὐτοῦ; comp. Ps. xci. 11; Jer. xvi. 17; Prov. 
ili. 6, etc.) ; he walks not on one path, but, as it is said in Ecclus. ii. 12: 
ἐπιβαίνει ἐπὶ δύο tpiBovc.2 The word ἀκατάστατος is found only again in chap. 
111. 8 and in the LXX. Isa. liv. 11, as the translation of 10; the substan- 
tive ἀκαταστασία Occurs in chap. iii. 16, besides in Luke and in the Epistles to 
the Corinthians. — The reason why the doubter is not heard is accordingly 
the disunion in which he is with himself, both in his internal and in his 
external life; God gives the heavenly gift of wisdom, which according to 
its nature is ἁγνή, only to him who ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ (Matt. xxii. 37), has given 
to God an undivided disposition. 

Vv. 9,10. James subjoins to the idea that the doubter should not think 
that he should receive any thing, the exhortation to the lowly brother; dé 
non solum apponendo, sed opponendo gravius hortatur (Theile). At first view 
the natural sense is, with De Wette, Wiesinger, and most expositors, to take 
ὁ ἀδελφός as the general idea, which is specified by 6 ταπεινός and ὁ πλούσιος. 
According to this view, ταπεινός is not equivalent to ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, Matt. 
xi. 29, but, in opposition to πλούσϊος, must be taken in its proper sense: 
afjlictus, particularly poor; on the other hand, 6 πλούσιος is the earthly rich, 
equivalent to opulentus, fortunatus, affluens rebus externis. The exaltation 
(τὸ ὕψος), in which the brother of low degree is to glory, can naturally only 
be the heavenly dignity which the Christian by his faith in Christ possesses, 
and whose future completion is guaranteed to-him by the promise of the 
Lord; and, corresponding to this, by ταπείνωσις is to be understood the low- 
liness, which “belongs to the rich man as a Christian through Christ” 
(Wiesinger), which is essentially the same with his exaltation. There is 
nothing against this idea in itself; the same oxymoron would be contained 
in the expression, were we to say, according to 1 Cor. vii. 22: “the δοῦλος 
rejoices in his ἐλευθερία, and the ἐλεύθερος in his δουλεία." But the context is 
against this explanation, not only because the distinction of Christians into 
rich and poor would be here introduced quite unexpectedly; but also be- 
cause vy. 2 and 12 show that the connection of the ideas in this section 


1 Therefore it is called, Constitut. Ap., vii. 
11: μὴ γίνου δίψυχος Ev προσευχῇ εἰ ἔσται, ἣ OV; 
and Clemens Romanus: ταλαίπωροι οἱ δίψυχοι, 
οἱ διστάζοντες τὴν ψυχήν ; comp. Kcclus. i. 28: 
μὴ προσέλθῃς αὐτῷ (κυρίῳ) ἐκ καρδίᾳ δίσσῃ. 

2 Schneckenburger incorrectly explains 
ἀποκατάστατος here of the fate of the doubter: 
**parum constantiae experitur in omnibus, quae 


ipsi contingunt, sua culpa sorte varia conflic- 
tatur,’”’ and 60s = fortuna ; also Heisen at least 
includes this idea: ‘‘ omnia vitae consilia ac 
facta quin et fata.’’ This certainly is a possi- 
ble explanation in itself, but it does not suit 
the context. The meaning attached to the 
word by Lange, ‘‘ seditious disturber,’’ cannot 
be proved to be correct by iii. 16. 


CHAP ΣῪ Ὁ} 10; 45 
is the reference to the πειρασμοῖί which Christians have to endure. Several 
expositors have assumed this reference in the idea ταπεινός ; thus, among 
moderns, Theile, whilst to the explanation of Morus: carens fortunis exlernis 
omninoque calamitosus, he adds: πειρασμὼν περιπεσών, ver. 23 δεδιωγμενος ἕνεκεν 
δικαιοσύνης, Matt. v. 10; πάσχων διὰ δικαιοσύνης, 1 Pet. iii. 14; but by this the 
simple contrast between ταπεινός and πλούσιος is destroyed ; for then ὁ πλούσιος 
must be taken as the rich Christian who had not suffered persecution, which 
would be evidently meaningless. If, on the other hand, the rich man who 
shares the lot of persecution with the poor is to be understood (as Laurentius 
explains it: dives, sc. frater, qui ipse erat una cum paupere fratre in disper- 
sione, direptionem bonorum suorum propter Christi evangelium passus, similarly 
Erasmus, Hornejus, and others), such a reference is not to be found in the 
idea ταπεινός in itself; if one puts it into the idea ταπείνωσις, so that by this is 
to be understood the suffering condition of persecution in which the πλούσιος 
is placed, or by which he is threatened (Gebser: “he rejoices in his lowli- 
ness, into which he may be brought by persecution’), then there is no reason 
to find in ταπεινός the idea of poverty expressed. Thus, then, in this view the 
train of thought, referring it to πειρασμοί, becomes indistinct and confused; 
and yet this reference is required by the context. But also what directly 
follows 15. against the idea of considering the πλούσιος as well as the ταπεινός 
as a Christian (ἀδελφός) ; for, apart from the fact that such a rich man 
would require no such pressing intimation of the perishableness of riches 
as is contained in the following clauses, it is carefully to be observed that in 
the words ὅτι... παρελεύσεται, and in ver. 11: οὕτω καὶ, «.7.2., the subject is 
ὁ πλούσιος and not ὁ πλοῦτος, as that explanation would render necessary; 
Winer: dives non habet, quo glorietur, nisi ab humilitate sua, nam divitiae mox 
periturae sunt; so also De Wette, Theile, Wiesinger, and others. This 
change of the subject is evidently unjustifiable. James says, not of riches, 
but of the rich man, παρελεύσεται, μαρανθήσεται, Which evidently is only valid 
of the rich man who forms a contrast to ταπεινὸς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Briickner, 
in order to avoid the change of subject, explains it of “the rich man accord- 
ing to his external relations;” but this reference is not only arbitrarily 
introduced, but it weakens the train of thought. That such a bad sense 
should be given by the author to the idea ὁ πλούσιος, is evident both from 
chap. ii. 6,7, where he represents the πλούσιοι as the persecutors of the Chris- 
tians, and from chap. v. 1-6, where they are threatened with condemnation ; 
besides, the word is elsewhere used in the Sacred Scriptures in a,bad sense; 
comp. Luke vi. 24-26; Isa. liii. 9, where VW’ is parallel with Ὁ»; Ecclus. 
ΧΙ]. 3: πλούσιος ἠδίκησε... πτωχὺς ἠδίκηται; XVI. 18: τί κοινωνῆσει λύκος ἀμνῷ; 
οὕτως ἁμαρτωλὸς πρὸς εὐσεβὴ . .. τίς εἰρήνη πλουσίῳ πρὸς πένητα. If ὁ πλούσιος 
stands in relation of contrast to ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινός, then the Christian con- 
dition cannot be understood by ταπείνωσις, or scarcely with Bouman: animi, 
nihil sibi arrogantis, modestia ; but only the destruction described in the fol- 
lowing words: ὅτι, x.7.A., into which the rich man on account of his pride 
has fallen; comp. Luke vi. 24-26.! The verb to be supplied is neither 


1 According to Lange, the expressions 6 prophetico-symbolical sense, so that the first 
ταπεινὸς and o πλούσιος are to be taken in a ‘* designates the Jewish Christian and the Jew 


46 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


αἰσχυνέσθω (Oecumenius, Estius, and others) nor ταπεινούσθω, but καυχάσθω 
(comp. Winer, p. 548 [Εἰ T. 622 ὃ 1). This certainly does not appear 
suitable, but the expression of James has its peculiar pointedness in this, 
that the ταπείνωσις, to which the rich man is devoted, is indicated as the only 
coject of his boasting.1_ To this irony (if it be called so) —which already 
the author of the commentary on the Lamentations in Jerome’s works, and 
after him Lyra, Thomas, Beza, and others, have recognized in our passage — 
less objection. is to be taken, as this was so natural to the deeply moral spirit 
of James, in opposition to the haughty self-confidence of the rich man 
opposed to the lowly Christian. — For a more exact explanation ‘of these 
two verses, the following remarks may suffice. The connection of ver. 9 
with the preceding is as follows: Let the brother of low degree glory amid 
his temptations in his exaltation .(Gunkel). The idea καυχᾶσθαι is neither 
exhausted by laetari, ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, 1 Pet. i. 6, Matt. v. 12 (Gebser), nor by 
commemorare, praedicare (Carpzov); it indicates rather glorying, proceeding 
from the confident assurance of superiority; Theile: notio gloriandi involvit 
notas, 1 gaudendi, 2 confidentiae, 3 externe expressi.— 6 ἀδελφός, according to 
the above explanation, refers only to ὁ raze:voc, not to ὁ πλούσιος, which rather 
forms the contrast set over against that idea. By 6 ταπεινός is not indicated 
a kind of ἀδελφοί, but is the characteristic mark of true Christians. It is 
incorrect to take ταπεινός here as entirely equivalent to πτῶχος ; it goes beyond 
the idea of πτῶχος, indicating the Christian according to his entire lowly 
condition in the world, which also is not inapplicable to him who is perhaps 
rich in worldly wealth, especially as these riches have no true value for him. 
Comp. moreover, 1 Cor. i. 26: ob πολλοὶ δυνατοι, ob πολλοὶ εὐγενεῖς. Ταπεινὸς 18 
the Christian, in so far as he is despised and persecuted by the world 
(τεταπεινωμένος καὶ κατησχυμμένος, Ps. xxiv. 21; comp. 1 Cor. i. 27), is inwardly 
distressed (ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενος, ἔξωθεν waxai, ἔσωθεν φόϑοι, 2 Cor. vil. 5), and 
walks in humility before God; the opposite of all this is comprehended in 
πλούσιος. On ὕψος, Theile rightly remarks: sublimitas . . . non solum jam 
praesens sed etiam adhuc futura cogitari potest = ζωῇ illa, quae in coelis perfi- 
cienda in terris jam est. Incorrectly, De Wette understands by this “present 
exaltation;" as little also does ὕψος indicate only “the steadfast courage of 
the Christian” (Augusti); and still less is it equivalent to divitiae, as Pott 
thinks, who finds only the thought here expressed: ὁ ταπεινός dives sibi vude- 
atur. — By ἐν is not to be understood the condition in which (Schnecken- 
burger), but, according to the prevailing linguistic usage of the N. T., the 
object upon which, the glorying' is to take place; comp. Rom. v. 3. — The 
words ὅτι ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου παρελεύσεται announce wherein the ταπείνωσις of the 
rich consists. As regards the construction, it forms one simple sentence. 


absolutely in their low oppressed theocratic 
condition as contrasted with the heathen world 
and the secular power, or still more exactly 
the theocrat, inasmuch as he deeply feels 
his condition; ” the second, ‘‘ again, designates 
the Jew and the Jewish Christian, inasmuch 
as he sees the hopeless situation of the Jewish 


people in a brilliant. light, inasmuch as he is 
not only rich in the consciousness of his Jew- 
ish prerogatives, but alsoin chiliastic and vis- 
ionary expectation,” etc. This interpretation 
requires no refutation. 

1 A similar connection is found in Phil. iii. 
19: ἡ δόξα ἐν TH αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, 


CHAP. I. 11. 47 


Baumgarten incorrectly construes παρελεύσεται with ὁ πλούσιος, and considers 
ὅτι ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου, sc. ἐστι, aS a parenthesis, by which an epigrammatic sharp- 
ness is conveyed to the preceding sentence. The figure, which is further 
drawn out in ver. 11, is of frequent occurrence in the O. T., whilst with the 
quickly fading grass and its flower is not only man generally (comp. Job 
Xiv. 2: ὥσπερ ἄνθος ἀνθῆσαν ἐξέπεσεν; Ps. ciil. 15: ἄνθρωπος ὡσεὶ χύρτος... ὡσεὶ 
ἄνθος τοὺ ἀγμοῦ οὕτως ἐξανθῆσει; Isa. xl. 6, 7: πᾶσα σὰρξ χόρτος, καὶ πᾶσα δόξα ἀνθρώ- 
πὼν ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου " ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσε ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 24), but 
also specially, as here the ungodly! (comp. Ps. xxxvii. 2: ὡσεὶ χόρτος ταχὺ ἀπο- 
ξηρανθήσονται, καὶ ὡσεὶ λάχανα χλόης ταχὺ ἀποπεσοῦνται ; see also Ps. xc. 6), com- 
pared. — ἄνθος is here, not as in Isa. xi. 1, LXX. translation of V¥2 = germen, 
‘surculus (Hottinger), but the flower; however, the combination VSN YS is 
not found in Hebrew; in Isa. xl.7 it is TWO YS. Παρέρχεσθαι, in the 
meaning of destruction, often occurs in the N. T. (so also in the Hebrew 
13}!); also in the classics: Soph., Trach. 69: τὸν παρελθόντ᾽ ἄροτον. 

Ver. 11. A further expansion of the image. The aorists ἀνέτειλε, ἐξήρανε, 
etc., do not precisely stand for the present (Grotius, Piscator, Hottinger, and 
others), but represent the occurrence in a concrete manner as a fact which 
has taken place, by which the description gains in vividness (comp. Isa. 
xl. 7), which is still more vividly portrayed by the simple succession of finite 
verbs. See Winer, p. 248 [E. T. 277] and p. 417 [E. T. 470]; A. Butt- 
mann, p. 175 [E. T. 202]. It is only confusing to convert ἀνέτειλε. ἐξή- 
pave into ἀνατείλας or ἐὰν ἀνατέλλῃ. . . ἐξήρανε. ---- By the word καύσων is often, 
in the LXX. (comp., besides, Ezek. xvii. 10, xix. 12; Hos. xiii. 15; Jer. 
xviii. 17; Jon. iv. 8; where ἄνεμος or πνεῦμα is added, particularly Job 
xxvii. 21; Hos. xii. 1), meant the hot east wind (0°), which, blowing over 
the steppes of Arabia, is very dry and scorching to vegetation (see Winer’s 
Reallexicon: word, Wind); here, however, as in Isa. xlix. 10 (1W closely 
united with WW), Ecclus. xviii. 16 (comp. also Ecclus. xliii. 8, where it is 
said of the sun: καὶ ἐναντίον καύματος αὐτοῦ τίς imoornoera), Matt. xx. 12, Luke 
xii. 55, it has the meaning “ heat, burning” (against Grotius, Pott, Hottinger, 
Kern, Schneckenburger, Winer, Wahl, Lange, Bouman, and others), as the 
parching effect is attributed not to the καύσων, as something different from 
the sun, but to the sun itself.? It is arbitrary to explain it as if it were 
written: ἠγέρθη γάρ, ἅμα τᾷ ἀνατεῖλαι τὸν ἥλιον, ὁ καύσων ; as Gebser says: “ the 
burning wind rising with the sun is the image.” Laurentius incorrectly 
understands by the sun “Christ,” and by the rising of the sun “ the day of 
the Lord;” thus the whole is an image of the judgment destroying the rich, 
yet so that the individual parts are to be retained in their appropriate mean- 
ing.? — καὶ ἐξήρανε, x.7.4, The same expressions in Isa. xl. 7. — ἐκπίπτειν, 1.e., 


1 Lange observes: ‘* This is not here the tation is not forthwith imperilled,” forms a 


image of the ungodly, but is to be understood 
as a historical figure with reference to the de- 
cay of the O. T. glory!” 

2 Neither the article before καύσωνι, nor 
the observation that, “with the rising of the 
sun and the development of its heat the vége- 


valid reason against this explanation (against 
Lange). 

8 That ‘‘ with the sun of a finished revela- 
tion was developing the hot wind of the law, 
which scorched the glory of Israel”? (Lange), 
isa remark which is here the more inappro- 


48 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


not simply the withering (Isa. xxviii. 1, 4, LXX.), but the actual] falling-off 
of the flower, is a consequence of the blighting of the plant. —4 εὐπρέπεια, 
the opposite of ἀπρέπεια, is used in the classics chiefly of external appearance; 
in the N. T. it is an dm. Aey.— τὸ πρόσωπον = DID, Ps. civ. 80; comp. Luke 
xii. 56; Matt. xvi. 3: species externa. αὐτοῦ refers, not as the first αὐτοῦ, to 
τὸν χόρτον, but to τὸ ἄνθος, on which the emphasis rests (comp. ver. 10, De 
Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman).!— οὕτω, thus quickly, thus entirely (Wiesinger); 
cai is not purely superfluous (Wiesinger), but, referring back to the image, 
heightens the comparison. — ὁ πλούσιος. . . μαρανθήῆσεται. It is to be observed 
that here also ὁ πλούσιος, and not ὁ πλοῦτος, is the subject. μαραίνεσθαι, in the 
N. T. an ἅπ. Aey., is found in the LXX. as the translation of 073", Job xv. 30; 
in the same meaning in the Wisdom of Solomon ii. 8. The figurative ex- 
pression is explained by what goes before. —év ταῖς πορείαις αὑτοῦ; not “on 
his journeys” (Laurentius, Piscator, Herder), also not “on his journeyings 
of fortune” (Lange); but = ἐν ταὶς ὅδοις αὑτοῦ, ver. 8 (comp. Prov. ii. 8, LX X.). 
The prominent idea is. that the rich man, overtaken by judgment, perishes 
in the midst of his doings and pursuits, as the flower in the midst of its blos- 
soming falleth a victim to the scorching heat of the sun. Luther’s transla- 
tion: “in his possession,” is explained from the false reading πορίαις. “See 
critical notes. 

Ver. 12. Whilst the rich man is condemned in the judgment, the ἀδελφὸς 
ὁ ταπεινός, Who suffers the πειρασμόν proceeding from the rich man, is blessed. 
This blessedness forms the conclusion of the series of thought begun at 
ver. 2. To μακάριος ὀνῆρ (see Ps. i. 1, and frequently in O. T.), not ἔστω but 
ἐστί is to be supplied. No special emphasis is to be put on ἀνῆρ; comp. vv. 
8, 20; incorrectly Thomas: Beatus vir, non mollis vel effoeminatus, sed vir ; 
and not less incorrectly Lange, who explains ἀνῆρ here as he does in ver. 8. 
— ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν is NOt = ὃς πειρασμοὶς περιπίπτει OY ὃς πειρασμὸν πάσχει (Hot- 
tinger); comp. ver. 3; it is the man who does not succumb to the tempta- 
tions which he has to endure. Laurentius: aliud est ferre crucem, aliud 
perferre. To supply ὅταν περιπέσῃ (Wiesinger) is unnecessary. — The follow- 
ing sentence beginning with ὅτε adduces the reason of the μακαρισμός : for 
being approved, he will receive the crown of life. By δόκιμος yevouevog is given 
not so much the condition as the cause, why he that endureth temptation 
will receive the crown of life; the being approved is the consequence of 
ὑπομένειν πειρασμόν. ---- δόκιμος is not, with Krebs, Lésner, Augusti, Pott, and 
others, to be referred as a figurative expression to the trial preceding the’ 
contests of athletes; but if a conscious figurative reference is to be assumed 
at all (which De Wette, Briickner, and Wiesinger not without reason con- 
sider as doubtful), it is to be referred to the purification of metals by fire 


(Hornejus, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Theile, and others).? In τὸν στέφανον 


priate, as according to it the sun and the hot 
wind are indicated as two different powers 
opposed to each other. 

1 Lange, on the other hand, observes “ that 
a fallen flower is still to lose its beauty ” can- 
not be imagined; but 18 it then to be imagined 
that the grass when it is withered, aud the 


flower has fallen from it, is still to lose its 
beauty ? 

2 Lange asserts that this figurative refer- 
ence is so far incorrect, as “‘ that figure pre- 
supposes the idea of refining, which, although 
contained in the trial or proof, is not identical 
with it; ’’ but the identity is not maintained. 


CHAP. I. 13. 49 


τῆς ζωῆς (“not the crown which is peculiar to eternal life, i.e., which is im- 
parted to it,” Gunkel), τῆς ζωῆς is not the genitive of possession (Lange), but 
of apposition: (uf, 1.e., the eternal blessed life, is itself the crown of glory 
with which he that endures is adorned; comp. Rey. ii. 10; 1 Pet. v. 4; 2 
Tim. iy. 8. It is at least doubtful if there is here any allusion to the reward 
of the victor in the Greek games,— which is maintained by Zwingli, 
Michaelis, Hensler, Pott, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others, and contested 
by Semler, Augusti, Schneckenburger, Hottinger, Theile, Briickner, and 
others, —as even among the Jews, without any reference to a contest, a 
crown or diadem is regarded as the symbol of peculiar honor; comp. besides 
Ps. xxi. 4 (Briickner), especially Wisdom of Solomon v. 16, 17: δίκαιοι εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα ζῶσι... λήψονται τὸ βασίλειον τῆς εὐπρεπείας καὶ τὸ διαδημα τοῦ κάλλους ἐκ χειρὸς 
κυρίου. With Paul, on the other hand, such an allusion frequently occurs. 
The certainty of receiving this crown of glory is founded on the divine 
promise: ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο (ὁ κύριος) τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. If ὁ κύριος is the correct 
reading, we are to understand not Christ (Baumgarten, Schneckenburger), 
but God (Gebser, Theile, Wiesinger). — The expression τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὑτόν 
(comp. Ps. xevii. 10, exlv. 20; Rom. viii. 28, ete.) intimates that ὑπομένειν 
πειρασμόν is a proof and testimony of love to God, and is accordingly a proof 
how careful James was to designate love as the essence of true faith (so 
also Lange); therefore the repetition of the same addition in chap. ii. 5. 
On the whole passage, comp. particularly 2 Tim. iv. 8. 

Ver. 13. To ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν James opposes ὃς mepaterac;+ whilst the 
former gains ζωῆ, the end to which the latter approaches is θάνατος (ver. 15). 
— First James disclaims a vain justification of the latter, and then describes 
the process of πειράζεσθα. The vain justification is introduced with the 
direct words of the πειραζόμενος : ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι, and then disclaimed 
by the expression: ὁ Θεὸς ἀπειραστος ἐστι κακῶν, x.7.A, — By the direct transition 
from the preceding to this verse, it is supposed that by the πειραζόμενος spoken 
about, in contrast to ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν (ver. 12), is to be understood the 
person who does not endure the temptation, and consequently is not proved 
by it, but who succumbs under it, whilst he suffers himself to be enticed to 
falling away —to sin. Pott: qui tentatione vincitur, ad peccandum vincitur , 
Theile: agit Jacobus de turpi tentatione per tristem (tentationem) ; so also Ols- 
hausen, Schneckenburger, Kern, and others. This connection is denied by 
others; thus Calvin says: de alio tentationes genere disserit ; and Wiesinger in 
the strongest manner: “ This appears as the design of the apostle: to distin- 
guish as much as possible those πειρασμούς and this πειράζεσθωι, to place the 
latter as totally different from the former.” But the close connection with 
the preceding constrains us to the opinion that James has considered both 
in reference to each other, the πείρασμοι occasioning the πειράζεσθαι which takes 
place when ἐπιθυμία is excited by it.2 It is arbitrary to take the verb πειρά- 


1 When Lange meets this with the ques- 2 It is to be observed that James designates 
tion, ‘‘ How could any one endure the temp- the trials, on which he thinks in ὅταν πειρασ- 
tation without having first been tempted?” he pois περιπέσητε, ver. 3, a8 πειρασμοί. It may 
only shows that he does not understand the be said that they are not this in themselves, but 
explanation here given. only in so far as the Christian is yet a sinner, 


50 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


ζεσθαι in the clause : μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος, in another sense than in the following 
clause: ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι, as Hottinger asserts: hic verbum πειράζεσθαι bis dici- 
tur sensu diversi; priori loco simpliciter: adversa pati ;_ posteriori: malis sollici- 
tari ad defectionem (similarly Grotius, Semler; also Lange); for, according 
to this interpretation, the excuse, ὅτι, «.7.4., would not correspond to the 
supposition contained in μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος. In justification of this view, 
Matt. viii. 80 cannot be appealed to, where the same word (νεκρόν) is used 
in the same sentence in different meanings, namely, in a proper and figura- 
tive meaning, as here the relation is entirely different. — Some expositors 
(Pott, Schneckenburger, and others), without reason, paraphrase λεγέτω by 
“cogitet, sibi persuadeat.’ Since the words which immediately follow are 
introduced in the direct form, it is better to retain the usual meaning of 
λέγειν, by which it is in itself evident that the external speaking presupposes 
an internal, on which it is here natural to think. —James makes the πειραζό- 
μενος thus briefly express the excuse by which he would justify himself: ὅτι 
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι, by which he transfers the guilt from himself to God.! ὅτι 
is the form of quotation frequently occurring in the N. T., except with Paul. 
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ is emphatically placed first. ἀπό is not equivalent to ὑπὸ; the former 
points to the more distant, the latter to the nearest cause, though by later 
writers ἀπό with passive verbs is sometimes used as equivalent to ὑπό. Here, 
however, the usual signification of ἀπό is to be retained, for the πειραζόμενος, 
introduced as directly speaking, would certainly not stigmatize God as the 
direct tempter (comp. Matt. iv. 1). See Winer, p. 332 [E. T. 371]. James 
does not with these words refer to any particular doctrine of religion and 
philosophy, perhaps to the doctrine of the Pharisees and Essenes on εἱμαρμένη 
(Bull, Ittig, Schneckenburger, and others), or the doctrine of Simon Magus 
(Calovius), but only considers generally the peculiar bias of the natural man 
to charge God somehow with the blame of πειράζεσθαι, recognizable in the 
answer of Adam to the question of God.2— James grounds the rejection of 
the idea contained in μηδεὶς... λεγέτω that the πειράζεσθαι proceeds from God, 
by a sentence comprising two members: ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς. . . οὐδένα, The word 
ἀπείραστος, AN ἅπαξ Aey. in the N. T., has in classical Greek —in which, how- 
ever, the form, ἀπείρατος (ἀπείρητος) almost always occurs — either the passive 
meaning untempled, — that is, what is not tempted or proved, — or the active 


and can thus be enticed by them into sin; 
when this happens, then the πειράζεσθαι, of 
which James here speaks, takes place. Stier: 
‘That there is a necessity for our all being 
tested and approved through trial, springs from 
our sin; the tempting element in our trial, the 
evil in it, springs therefore from that and not 
from God.” 

1 He might find a justification of this in the 
fact that πειρασμοί actually spring from God. 
See Meyer on Matt. vi. 18, and on 1 Cor. x. 13. 
Lange introduces inappropriate matter, main- 
taining in favor of the concrete relations sup- 
posed by him, that the Jews and Judaizing 
Christians with this word would justify their 


fanaticism against the Gentiles, particularly 
their separation from the Gentile Christians, 
as an affair of God (for his glory) ! 

2 Many expressions in Greek authors show 
how natural this is to man; comp. 71. τ. 86: 
ἐγώ δ᾽ οὐκ altos εἰμι ἀλλὰ Ζεύς, και μοῖρα; 
Plaut., Audul., ἵν. 10, 7: Deus impulsor mihi 
fuit; Terent., Zunuch., v. 2, 86: Quid, si hoc 
voluit quispiam Deus? — Such an excuse sug- 
gested itself to the Jews the more as it ap- 
peared justified by the language of the O. T. 
Comp. Exod. xx. 16. On the contrary, Philo 
(Quod. deter. pot.,177 D) remarks: ov ws ἔνιοι 
τῶν ἀσεβῶν, τὸν Θεὸν aitiov τῶν κακῶν φῆσι 
Μωῦσῆς. Still more fully in Schneckenburger. 


CHAP. 1. 14. δὶ 


meaning: he who has made no trial, equivalent to inexperienced. Some 
expositors take the word in the second meaning; thus Schulthess: in Dewm 
nulla malorum experientia; De Wette, Briickner, and others. But, on ac- 
count of the close connection with πειράζειν, the word has here, as most expos- 
itors assume, an ethical meaning. Yet it is incorrect to explain it actively, 
with Luther (God is not a tempter to evil; Vulgate: intentator), because 
this clause would then be tautological with the following. It is rather to 
be taken passively: untempted of evil, by which the idea passes from tentatus 
to that of tentabilis; Winer, p. 175 [E. T. 194]. By the Church Fathers 
God is often named simply ὁ ἀπείραστος ; so Ignat. Ad. Philipp. : τί πειράζεις τὸν 
ἀπείραστον ; Photius, Contra Manich., iv. p. 225: πειράζειν ἐπιχειρῇσασι τὸν ἀπεῖ- 
pacrov. By this predicate the holiness of God, which is raised above all 
temptation to evil, is indicated, and is the motive likewise to the following 
thought.?— κακῶν is not masculine, but neuter; not misery (Oecumenius), 
but evil.8 — πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα expresses the consequence of the preceding 
and the pointed contrast to ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι. πειράζει is placed first for the 
sake of emphasis. By αὐτός, which most interpreters pass over, is brought 
forward not God’s action in contrast to “being tempted” (Theile: ipse quo- 
que non tentat idem ille Deus, qui tentari nequit; Wiesinger: “ He, self-active;” 
so also Lange), but shows that the πειράζειν indeed takes place, but from 
another cause (ἡ ἴδια ἐπιθυμία) than from God. The meaning of the whole 
verse is as follows: Let no man, when he is tempted (inwardly enticed) to 
evil, say, From God I am tempted: for God suffers no temptation; but (dé) 
as to the temptation, He (God) tempteth no man: but every man is tempted, 
etc. As regards the apparent contradiction of this with other passages of 
the Holy Scriptures, where the sins of men are referred to God as their reason 
(Gen. xxii. 1; Deut. viii. 2, οἷο"), Calvin correctly remarks: Quum Scriptura 
excoecationem vel obdurationem cordis tribuit Deo, neque illi initium assignat, 
neque facit mali auctorem, ut culpam sustinere debeat. In his autem duobus 
solum Jacobus insistit. 

Ver. 14. That “eipagecta: proceeds not from God,” is the thought of 
ver. 13. Whence comes it, then? The answer is given in this verse: 


1 Buttmann, p. 148 [E. T. 170], contests this 
meaning, which rather belongs to the word 
ἄπειρος. But passages, as Hom. 27. ad Ven. 
V. 183: ἀδνήτην μ᾽ ἀγάγων Kat ἀπειρήτην φιλό- 
τητος; Theognis, 772: πολλοὶ ἀπείρητοι δόξαν 
ἔχουσ᾽ ἀγαθῶν, show that ἀπείρατος actually has 
that meaning. 

2 Lange maintains, in reference to the in- 
terpretation given above, that in this commen- 
tary ἀπείρ. κακ. is explained as equivalent to 
‘God has no experience of evil,’’ and that it 
is said that the passive construction: ‘not 
tempted,” ‘‘ not temptable,” is against gram- 
matical usage and the connection! In a very 
strange manner he thinks it is here designed 
to strengthen the warning: Let no man say; 
for this saying, like all fanaticism, was a 
tempting God, and therefore vain and impious, 


because God does not suffer himself to be 
tempted. 

8 Inapposite uniting of various explana- 
tions by Theile and Morus: aveip, «ax, dicitur, 
partim quoniam nullae miseriae possunt eve- 
nire Deo, partim quoniam per eas non potest 
inclinari ad peccandum, ad cupiditatem ali- 
quam exercendam; Deus igitur est expers 
miseriae omnis atque etiam peccati vel pravae 
cupiditatis, et quia est, neque tentatur a malis 
ipse, neque alium tentat. 

4 The passage in Ecclus. xy. 11, 12, 20, is 
especially to be compared: μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι διὰ 
κύριον ἀπέστην, μὴ εἴπῃς OTL αὐτός με ἐπλάνη- 
σεν. Οὐκ ἐνετείλατο οὐδενὶ ἀσεβεῖν καὶ οὐκ 
ἔδωκεν ἄνεσιν οὐδενὶ ἁμαρτάνειν. See also 1 


Cor, x. 18. 


52 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


“ Every man is tempted when he is drawn out and allured by his own lust.” The 
words ὑπὸ τῆς ἴδ. ἐπιθυμίας belong not to πειράζεται (Theile, Wiesinger), but to 
ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Knapp, Grashof, 
Hottinger, De Wette, Briickner, Lange, and others), as otherwise these ideas 
would drag too much, and would receive their closer reference only by sup- 
plying something, as in’ αὐτῆς (Wiesinger). James will describe πειράζεσθαι 
according to its process; he therefore places the idea first, and then gives in 
what follows how it occurs: consequently the construction mepavera: . . . ἐξελκύ- 
μενος requires not to be altered into πειραζόμενος... ἐξελκύεται (Schnecken- 
burger). — πειραζόμενος, as is evident from what goes before, is to be supplied 
to ἕκαστος ; it corresponds to οὐδένα, ver. 13. The attribute ἐδίας is emphatic, 
expressing the contrast to αὐτός in ver.13. It is brought prominently forward 
because ἐπιθυμία has its ground not in God, but belongs to man. — By ἐπιθυμία 
is not denoted “innocent sensuousness,” but it occurs here, as everywhere in 
the N. T. (except where its specific object is named, as in Luke xxii. 15; 
Phil. 1. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 17), even without the addition of κακῆ, σαρκικῆ, or 
some similar adjectives, in sensu malo; yet it is not to be understood as origi- 
nal sin: “the sinful tendency, the same as Paul calls ἁμαρτία in Rom. vii. 7” 
(Hofmann, Schrifibew., i. p. 469; Wiesinger); rather ἐπιθυμία here is the 
same as in Rom. vii. 7, namely, lust for the forbidden action springing from - 
original sin (which Paul designates as the ἁμαρτία which χωρὶς νόμου is “ vexpa,” 
but by the commandment revives, and πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν κατεργάζεται). So, also, 
Briickner.1— James does not here speak of the origin and development of 
sin in general, but he wishes to mention, in contrast to ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι, by 
what sinful man is tempted to the definite act of sin, so that he had no occa- 
sion to refer to original sin. — With regard to the form of expression, Pott 
correctly says: ἐπιθυμία, ἁμαρτία et θάνατος personarum vim habent ; imaginem 
meretricis suppeditant voces συλλαβεῖν, τίκτειν, ἀποκύειν, nec non et ἐξέλκειν atque 
The two words ἐξέλκειν and δελεάζειν sind verba e re venatoria et pisca- 
toria in rem amatoriam et inde in nostrum tropum translata (Schneckenburger) ; 
this at least is valid of δελεάζειν. The meaning: protrahere in littus (Pott, and 
also De Wette), does not here lie at the root of the idea ἐξέλκειν (ἅπαξ Aey. in 
N. T.), for then it would require to be placed after δελεάζειν (as also Wieseler, 
Briickner, and Lange observe). Schulthess more correctly explains it: edi- 
cere bestias ex tuto ubi latent in locum hamis retibusque expositum; but it is 
probable that James had not the original figure so definitely before his eyes. 
Many interpreters (Menochius, Grotius, Laurentius, Pott, Hottinger, Baum- 


δελεάζειν. 


1 According to Hofmann’s explanation, the 
form of expression of James would be diamet- 
rically opposed to that of Paul; for what Paul 
calls ἁμαρτία, James would call ἐπιθυμία; and 
what Paul calls ἐπιθυμία, James would call 
ἁμαρτία! And how objectionable is it to say, 
with Wiesinger: ἐπιθυμία, when stirred up, 
produces those ἐπιθυμίας σαρκός in Gal. v. 16, 
24, that ἐπιθυμεῖν and that ἐπιθυμία in Rom. 
vii. 7,8. It is also incorrect, with Lange, to 
understand by ἴδια ἐπιθ. ““ originai sin itself in 
its concrete activity,” or “‘ the folly which the 


individual encounters externally, over against 
which the lust belonging to him is objectively 
placed,” and to determine the same more defi- 
nitely as the totality of those “ glittering, varie- 
gated, visionary expectations which seductively 
met both the Jews and the Jewish Christians, 
which had sprung from the matter of the chili- 
astic, world-lusting, spiritual pride.”” James 
does not here speak of ἐπιθυμία as attacking 
an individual from outside, but only of that 
which is within him. 


CHAP. I, 15. 53 


garten, Theile, and others) supply a bono to ἐξέλκ. and ad malum to δελεάζ., 
or something similar; yet incorrectly, as the idea is rather that ἐπιθυμία as a 
harlot entices man, that is, his will, to herself; the ἐξ in ἐξέλκ. is thus to be 
explained, that man, enticed by the allurements of ἐπιθυμία, is enticed to for- 
sake his former position (as the place where he remained hitherto concealed); 
Schneckenburger: Statu quasi suo et loco se extrahi et dimoveri ipse patitur. It 
is incorrect to explain ἐξέλκειν as equivalent to προσέλκειν, or as an intensified 
form instead of ἕλκειν. The being taken captive by ἐπιθυμία is indicated by 
δελεαζόμενος.32 δελεάζειν, in the N. T. used here only and in 2 Pet. ii. 2, 14, 18, 
is also, among classical writers, used figuratively only in sensu mailo.® 

Ver. 15. Continuing the image used in ver. 14, James in this verse de- 
scribes what is the fruit which proceeds from δελεάζεσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας: 
Lust having conceived (i.e., become pregnant) bringeth forth sin, and sin when 
it is completed bringeth forth death. The object of this representation is not 
to give a doctrine of sin, —its origin and its end,— but by indicating the 
Sruit of πειράζεσθαι, to demonstrate that it is not from God. By εἶτα the result 
of πειράζεσθαι, namely τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, is indicated as directly following upon 
it; συλλαβοῦσα forms the transition to it, which occurs by ἐπιθυμία taking the 
will of man captive; it, as it were, becomes pregnant, so that it bears sin. — 
᾿ συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει corresponds to the Hebrew om WM, which is uniformly 
in the LXX. translated by συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκε (Gen. iv. 5, 17, xxx. 17, and other 
passages). By ἁμαρτία without th® article, the fruit of ἐπιθυμία, according to 
its quality, is indicated in an entirely general manner. Sin born by lust 
again carries in itself its own fruit (κύημα), which, having come to comple- 
tion (ἀποτελεσθεῖσα), is brought forth out of itself (ἀποκύει). According to 
De Wette, by ἁμαρτία in the first clause is to be understood “the resolution 
or internal act,” but in the second clause (7 ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖὶσα), “sin accom- 
plished in the ezternal act,” thus acts of sin. This, however, is incorrect, as 
— (1) by ἢ δὲ ἁμαρτία the ἁμαρτία already mentioned is again taken up, and 
therefore must have the same meaning; and (2) ἀποτελεῖν ἁμαρτίαν cannot 
mean “sin accomplished.” 4 Wiesinger, with regard to τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, correctly 
observes: “ ἁμαρτία is sin, but whether the internal or external act is not 
stated ;”’ yet ἀποτελεσθεῖσα added in the following clause shows that James 
considered ἁμαρτία as something graduaily developed, for ἀποτελεῖν is not 
equivalent to τίκτειν (so that ἀποτελεσθεῖσα Would be = τεχθεῖσα, Baumgarten : 
“sin brought or produced into the world in such a manner”), but completed: 


1 See Athenaeus, i. 3, 6. 8: διὰ τὴν ὁμιλίαν 
τοὺς ἐραστὰς προσελκύσασθαι. Ael., NV. An., Vi. 
31: ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς ἑλκόμενος. 

2 Lange: “Τὸ draw off and to allure: Ger- 
man, Ablocken and Anlocken; the man is 
first drawn out from his inward self-control 
and fortress, and then attracted (drawn to) by 
the allurements of the harlot.’’ 

8 Comp. particularly, Plato, Tim., lxix. 6: 
ἡδονὴ μεγίστων κακῶν δέλεαρ; Plut., De Ser. 
Num. Vind.: τὸ γλυκὺ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ὥσπερ 
δέλεαρ ἐξέλκειν (ἀνθρώπους). 

4 De Wette incorrectly appeals to the ex- 


pression ἀποτελεῖν ἐπιθυμίαν in Plato, Gorg., p- 
503 Ὁ, and τελεῖν τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν, as there ἐπι- 
θυμία and ἁμαρτία are not similar, but different 
ideas. When Wiesinger, against the explana. 
tion of De Wette, says that συλλαβοῦσα indi- 
cates that “‘the will consents to the demand 
of the desire, which is the resolution or inter- 
nal act,” it is, on the contrary, to be observed 
that these two are by no means identical, as 
the resolution is an act of the will, and thus is 
actually sin, whilst by συλλαβοῦσα is indicated 
ἃ point preceding τίκτειν ἁμαρτίαν, 


54 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


thus ἡ ἀμ. ἀποτ. = “ sin which has attained to its complete development.” It is not 
entirely corresponding to the idea of James, when Calvin (with whom most 
recent critics — Kern, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, and ,others — 
agree) explains it as “the entire sinful life” (non unum aliquod opus perpe- 
tratum, sed cursus peccandi completus, vila impia et scelerata). As James 
considers ἁμαρτία itself personified, it is ἀποτελεσθεῖσα When it has grown to 
such fulness of power that it rules man’s whole life. According to this idea, 
it is indeed correct when several interpreters explain ἀποτελ. by adulta; thus 
Bouman: Peccatum, quum ad adultam pervenit aetatem; yet, linguistically, 
this explanation is not to be justified, as ἀποτελεῖσθαι is not equivalent to ado- 
lescere. The explanation given in the earlier edition of this commentary, 
that .by ἁμαρτία is meant the act of sin, is erroneous, because such a limita- 
tion of the general idea is not indicated; on this account it is not correct to 
think on ἐπιθυμία and ἁμαρτία as a single definite lust and sin. — Briickner 
considers the addition of ἀποτελεσθεῖσα is made only “in order that ἁμαρτία, 
which was at first represented as a child, might again be represented as a 
mother.” This, however, is incorrect: the origin‘and growth (or, more cor- 
rectly, the completion) of sin by no means occur “in reality together at one 
moment;” sin bears death, which it carried in itself at the first, only when 
it is not interrupted in its development by a higher life-power, but has 
attained to its complete form. — By θάνατος, by which James indicates the 
fruit of completed sin according to its nature, is to be understood, not only 
temporary death (Pott: Homines peccando mortales factos esse omnes consentiunt 
NV. T. scriptores), but, as the opposite of the ζωῇ which God has promised, 
and will give to them who love Him, eternal death; see Rom. vi. 23: τὰ 
ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας, θάνατος " τὸ δὲ χάρισμα Θεοῦ, ζωὴ αἰώνιος. If, therefore, noth- 
ing but θάνατος is the end to which πειράζεσθαι conducts, this cannot possibly 
have its reason in God, who works ζωῇ, and therefore it is absurd to say ἀπὸ 
Θεοῦ πειράζομαι (ver. 13).— The expression droxie (only here and in ver. 18 
in the N. T.) is distinguished from τίκτει only in this, that it indicates more 
definitely that ἁμαρτία from the beginning is pregnant with θάνατος. By the 
explanation: merelur mortem (Bede, Laurentius, and others), a relation is 
introduced foreign to the context. On the mode of writing ἀποκυεὶ and 
ἀποκύει, see Winer, p. 80 (E. T. 88); Schirlitz, p. 184 ἢ. 

Ver. 16 introduces the statement which follows as one particularly im- 
portant. Not only the exhortation; μὴ πλανᾶσθε, but also the added address: 
ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί, Shows how important this observation appeared to the 
author. A new line of thought, unconnected with the preceding, does not 
indeed begin with this verse; μὴ πλανᾶσθε must not therefore be considered, 
with Hornejus, Gebser,-and others, only as the concluding formula to what 
goes before. Theile correctly observes: Ubi antecedentia respicit, nunquam 
Jinit cohortationem, sed ita interpositum est, ut continuet ac firmet, nunc illus- 
trando, nunc cavendo. The same formula is found in 1 Cor. vi. 9, xv. 33: 
Gal. vi. 7 (similarly 1 John iii. 7); in all those places it precedes a thought 
certain to the Christian conscience, by which a preceding expression is con- 
firmed in opposition to a false opinion: this is also the case here. Grotius 
inserts an entirely foreign reference when he says, hoc vult: ne putate vestrumn 


CHAP. I. 17. 55 


studium sufficere sine precibus ; see Luke xviii. 1. There is here no reference 
whatever to prayer. 

Ver. 17. The sentiment in this verse, introduced by ver. 16, is designed 
for the complete rejection of ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι; the good comes from God, 
therefore πειράζεσθαι cannot come from God. The idea of the good is indi- 
cated by two synonymous expressions: δόσις ἀγαθῆ and δώρημα τέλειον. By 
δύσις, Which has here not an active, as in Phil. iv. 5 (Bouman, Lange), but 
ἃ passive signification (as frequently in classical Greek and in the Apoc- 
rypha), and by δώρημα, the same thing is indicated —in contrast to idia ἐπι- 
θυμία, ver. 14— as something given and presented, which thus proceeds not 
from man himself. By δωρημα τέλειον the idea already contained in δόσις ἀγαθῆ 
is heightened, δώρημα more definitely indicating the gift (δόσις) as a free present 
(which Gunkel incorrectly denies; see Rom. ν. 16, where δώρημα is parallel 
with χάρισμα), and τέλειον the idea of the good (ἀγαθῇ) as morally perfect.1 It 
is arbitrary to refer the two expressions to different gifts, and by δόσις to 
understand the gifts of the kingdom of nature or of the present life, and by 
δώρημα those of the kingdom of grace or of the future life. Also ἀγαθῇ is not, 
with Didymus, to be restricted to the idea of the useful. Several interpret- 
ers (Raphelius, Stolz, Rosenmiiler, Bengel, Augusti, Pott, Hottinger, and 
others) put an exclusive force on πᾶς, as if it were = non nisi, “nothing but;” 
but the thought is weakened thereby. James designs to say not only —in 
contrast to the derivation of πειράζεσθαι from God — that only good (thus not 
evil) gifts come from Him, but likewise that good gifts all come only from 
God (thus from none else) (Stier); πᾶς is accordingly to be taken in its 
usual meaning; but ἀγαθή and τέλειον are to be emphasized. Schnecken- 
burger arbitrarily explains it as if James had written: πᾶσα δόσις καὶ πὰν 
δώμημα ἄνωθεν καταβαῖνον τέλειον éott.2 — ἄνωθεν = οὐράνοθεν (Acts xiv. 17, xxvi. 
13; ἐκ τοὺ οὐρανοῦ, John vi. 32, 33), is put first for the sake of emphasis. — 
ἐστι καταβαῖνον are not, with Wolf, Bengel, Kern, Bouman, and others, to be 
separated, so that ἐστι is to be joined to ἄνωθεν, and καταβαῖνον is added as an 
epexegesis; but to be united, and are put instead of καταβαίνει, only that by 
the participle the quality of the verbal idea is more brought out; see chap. 
iii. 15; so also Wiesinger and A. Buttmann, p. 266 (E. T. 310); Winer, 
Ῥ. 311 (E. T. 350), and Schirlitz, p. 317, on the other hand, regard the ex- 
pression as entirely equivalent to καταβαίνει. --- The expression καταβαῖνον is 
explained from ἄνωθεν. The explanation of Laurentius: non cadens, sed 
descendens, quia ordinarie bona sua dona dat, is far-fetched. — ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς 
τῶν φώτων, an epexegesis to the preceding. By ra φῶτα is to be understood 
neither spiritual light, whether knowledge (Hornejus), or joy (Michaelis), or 
goodness, wisdom (Wolf: Omnis perfectio, bonitas, sapientia et prosperilas), 
or something similar, nor the spirits of light (Schol. ap. Mait.: ἤτοι τὼν 


1 Whilst De Wette finds the emphasis only —_ Christianity;”” and by Soc. dy. ‘every thing 
in the adjectives, Theile correctly remarks: Et | which served to prepare this completed gift, 


substantiva et adjectiva differunt ita, ut poste- especially in the old covenant.” 
riuspriore sit definitius ideoque majus. So also 2 On the accidental hexameter which the 
Wiesinger and Briickner. Lange by dup. rea. words maga... τελειον form, see Winer, p. 


understands ‘‘the gift of God compieted in 564 (E. ‘T’. 798). 


56 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


ἀγγελικῶν δυνάμεων - ἢ τῶν πεφωτισμένων ἀνθρώπων; Lange: “The whole series of 
organs of revelation from Abraham to Christ, as the representatives of all 
good spirits”). Nor is there here any allusion to the Urim and Thummim 
of the high priest (Heisen); but by it are meant, as almost all modern 
expositors recognize, the heavenly bodies (see LXX. Ps. exxxv. (cxxxvi.) 7; 
Jer. iv. 23) = φωστῆρες, LXX., Gen. i. 14. God is designated as the πατῆρ of 
these, because He is their Creator and Preserver. This designation, for 
which Job xxxviii. 28 cannot be appealed to, is surprising, as it is without 
analogy either in the O. or N. T. (otherwise with profane writers and Philo). 
It has, however, its ground in this, that James considers the light of the 
heavenly bodies as a reflection of the essential light of God. Since God is 
the Father of light, the symbol of the holy ones (Wiesinger), so He Himself 
must be light, and thus nothing dark (consequently not πειράζεσθαι), but 
rather only all that is light,can proceed from Him. As the Father of lights, 
God, however, outshines these: their light is changing; His, on the contrary, 
is without change. The following words: with whom there is no variation nor 
shadow (in consequence) of change, express this idea; i.e., whilst with the 
stars a παραλλαγῆ ΟΥ̓ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα occurs, there is nothing similar to this 
with God.! According to Grotius, with whom various expositors agree, 
these expressions are termini technict of astronomy. But, in opposition to 
this, it is to be observed that παραλλαγῇ never occurs as an astronomical term 
(see Gebser in loco), and the astronomical signification of τροπῇ = solstitium, 
solstice (τροπαὶ θεριναί and χειμεριναί ; comp. Wisd. vii. 18: τροπῶν ἀλλαγάς), is 
not here suitable, as the sun is not mentioned specially, nor is an ἀποσκίασμα 
effected by the solstice. James here uses not the language of astronomy, 
but that of ordinary life (Wiesinger). — παραλλαγῇ is to be understood quite 
generally, variation. James adds to this general idea, in order to bring 
prominently forward that the essential light of God is not, as is the case 
with the stars, obscured by any thing, the more definite idea τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα. 
ἀποσκίασμα has not an active (De Wette: “casting a shadow”), but a passive 
signification, being shaded (so Briickner) ; and τροπῆς assigns the reason (ἀπο- 
σκίασμα quae oritur e τροπῇ, Schneckenburger): thus the shadowing of the 
stars, which is effected by their changeable position:* for that James has 
founded his idea in a change in the stars themselves, is not probable.’ 
Luther’s translation: “the change of light and darkness” (similarly, Stolz: 
“changing obscuration’), is only justified if it were said τροπὴ ἀποσκιάσματος. 
Deviating entirely from the above explanation, the Greek interpreters take 


1 Flatt (Spicil. observatt. ad ep. Jacobi): 
Auctor siderum nitidorum ipsis etiam nitidior 
et nitoris, nullis unquam tenebris interrupti, 
majori constantia fulgens. Similarly it is said 
of Wisdom: ἔστι yap αὕτη εὐπρεπεστέρα ἡλιου, 
καὶ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἄστρων θέσιν, φωτὶ συγκρινομένη 
εὑρίσκεται προτέρα, Wisdom of Solomon, vii. 29. 

2 Incorrectly, Lange explains the expres- 
sion, “οὗ the obscuration of the earth effected 
by the diurnal phenomenal revolution of the 
sun, moon, and stars.’? And the proper idea 


which James has in view is, according to 
Lange, that God ‘‘makes no revolution with 
the Old Testament which would cast a night- 
shadow on the New, nor does he suffer the 
New Testament to cast a night-shadow on the 
Old’?! 

3 Without reason, Baumgarten, Schnecken- 
burger, and others assume that James here 
alludes to the astrological superstitions of the 
Jews. 


CHAP. I. 18. 57 


drookiacua = ἴχνος; Oecumenius: ἀντὲ τοῦ " οὐδὲ μέχρις ὑπονοίας τινὸς ὑποβολῇ ; 
Suidas: ἀντὶ τοῦ" ἀλλοιώσεως καὶ μεταβολῆς ἴχνος " καὶ ὁμοίωμα φαντασίας ; and 
following them several recent writers; Morus: ne tantillum mutationes ; 
Rosenmiiller: no shadow of change; so Hensler and others. But in this 
signification ἁποσκίασμα never elsewhere occurs; also the here essential idea of 
obscuration (Bengel: ἀποσκίασμα, opponitur luminibus) would be lost. —The 
form ἔνι (besides here in the N. T., in 1 Cor. vi. 5; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11) 
is not, with Buttmann, ii. 375; Winer, p. 74 (E. T. 80); Schirlitz, 171, and 
others, to be taken as a peculiar form of ἐν, but is the abbreviation of ἔνεστι 
(A. Buttmann, p. 64 [E. T. 72]); comp. 1 Cor. vi. 5: οὐκ ἔνι ἐν ὑμῖν σοφὸς 
οὐδὲ εἰς (see Meyer in loco). ἔνι, however, is not, with Pott, to be explained 
as precisely equivalent with ἐστιν, yet the meaning of the preposition ἐν is so 
weakened, as the verb could be construed with any other preposition, as here 
with the preposition παρά, which here, as frequently in the N. T., stands for 
“what spiritually belongs to another, is in another’s possession.” 1 

Ver. 18. Most interpreters subordinate the thought contained in this 
verse to the preceding, regarding it either as an example (Laurentius: loqui- 
tur Ap. in his verbis de generatione spirituali ut sit quasi exemplum aliquod 
istorum donorum spiritualium, quae sunt desuper) or as a confirmation and a 
proof (thus Gebser, Kern, Wiesinger, Bouman; also Lange) :? on the con- 
trary, according to Theile and De Wette,? its relation is that of co-ordination. 
But in both explanations the peculiar significance which this verse has in 
the context is mistaken. It is to be recognized as a principal thought, not 
only because the succeeding exhortations flow from it, but also because the 
preceding development only comes to its close in it; whilst only in βουληθεὶς 
ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς is not only the assertion ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι completely refuted, 
but also all the earlier-mentioned assertions have their sure foundation. It 
is accordingly not a confirmation of ver. 17, but rather a special inference 
from the general idea of that verse. — βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς]. The verb itself 
testifies that here the discourse is of the new birth, and not of natural birth, 
for droxiew is synonymous with γεννᾷν; but the man γεγεννημένος ἐκ Θεοῦ (1 
John iii. 9; see also 1 Pet. i. 23) is not man in himself, but man born again. 
Unsatisfactorily Pott explains ἀποκύειν = facere, efficere, since by this the 
specific idea of the verb, that the foundation of the life of him who is born 
again lies in God, and that he is θείας φύσεως κοινωνός (2 Pet. i. 4), is lost. — 
ἡμᾶς ; not us as men, nor us as Jewish Christians, but us as Christians. — The 
verse emphatically commences with βουληθείς, by which is expressed not a 
contrast to the merit of human works (Bede : non nostris, sed beneficio suae 
voluntatis; similarly Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, etc.), nor to ‘‘the Jewish 
claims of righteousness” (Lange), but it is designed prominently to bring 
forward the thought that the new birth rests on the divine will, — the work 
is that which God has peculiarly willed. But if this be the case, how can 


1 Demosthenes, De Cor., p. 318, 18: εἰ δ᾽ οὖν 3 Theile: Deus, luminum pater, etiam 
ἐστι Kai παρ᾽ ἐμοί τις ἐμπειρια τοιαύτη. parens est generationis nostrae. De Wette: 

2 Lange strangely designates the new birth In place of all good gifts, the gracious gift of 
as the effect of the δώρημα τέλειον which came the Christian salvation is likewise mentioned 
down from heaven, as a proof that God can be no tempter. 


58 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


πειράζεσθαι proceed from Him? Without sufficient reason, Bengel, Kern, 
Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, and others put the additional idea of love in 
βουληθείς. ---- λόγῳ ἀληθείας]. The instrument of ἀποκυῆσαι is the λογος ἀληθείας, 
that is, the gospel,? which is so called because ‘‘dAndeia in its entire reality 
is inherent in it” (Harless on Eph. i. 13). The words: εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχὴν 
τίνα τῶν αὑτοῦ κτισμάτων, express the aim of this new birth, by which is not 
indicated what Christians, as those who are born of God, ought to become, 
but what they are, according to the intention of God.? By τινα added to 
ἀπαρχῆν the mode of expression is indicated as figurative; for, as Calvin 
correctly remarks, τίνα simililudinis est nota, nos quodammodo esse primitias 
(so also Gebser, Hottinger, Kern, Wiesinger, and others). Also Bengel 
recognizes this, but he puts therein a false reference, observing: QUAEDAM 
habel MODESTIAM, nam primitiae proprie et absolute est Christus. Still more 
incorrect is it, with Lange, to explain τινα, that James considered the angels 
of God as a different kind of first-fruits of creation. Laurentius correctly 
says: ἀπαρχή allusio est ad ritum legalem in Vetum Testamentum de consecra- 
tione primogenitorum, frugum, jumentorum et hominum (so also Calvin, 
Hornejus, Wiesinger, and others ; unsatisfactorily De Wette: ‘chosen and 
holy”). The word has here, as everywhere in the O. T., and predominantly 
among the classics, a religious signification, namely, “ the first-fruits dedicated 
to God ;”’ so that James by this expression indicates Christians, as a fruit 
dedicated to the service of God. But ἡμὰς emphatically repeated shows that 
James does not here state the nature of Christians generally, but what the 
position is which he and those Christians occupy who, according to Rom. 
Vili. 23, possess τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος (see Meyer in loco). They are a 
kind of first-fruits of God’s creatures, because they, as being born of God, 
are dedicated to God frst among all His creatures. The glorification, which 
is destined for the whole world, was first imparted to Christians then living.* 
In the N. T. ἀπαρχῆ is sometimes so used that the religious signification steps 
into the background (thus in 1 Cor. xv. 20,23; Rom. viii. 23, xvi. 5; 1 Cor. 
xvi. 15; otherwise in Rom. xi. 16 and Rev. xiv. 5); and accordingly sev- 
eral expositors explain the expression of James as equivalent to οἱ πρῶτοι τῶν 


1 Bengel: voluntate amantissima. Schneck- 
enburger: non merum volendi actum sed be- 
nignam et benigna voluntate ortam volitionem 
exprimit. The view of Oecumenius is evi- 
dently entirely perverted: τὸ βουληθεὶς εἶπεν, 
ἐπιστομίζων TOUS αὐτομάτως ὑποστῆναι τόδε TO 
πᾶν ληροῦντας. 

2 If the want of the article should constrain 
us to translate λόγος ἀληθείας, “ἃ word of 
truth,’ that is, a word whose nature is truth 
(see Meyer on 2 Cor. vi. 7), yet by this word 
of truth here the gospel can oniy be under- 
stood; but it is more probable that the article 
is omitted because λόγος ἀληθείας, as an idea 
definite in itself, did not require the article to 
designate it. 

8 According to Lange’s supposition, “ this 
teleological mode of expression is chosen in 


order to indicate that the Jews should become 
what Christians already are.” This is purely 
arbitrary, as such a distinction is not indicated 
in the very slightest degree. 

4 It is, however, also possible that James by 
ἡμᾶς has had in view, not the distinction be- 
tween the then-existing and the later Chris- 
tians, but only the distinction between Chris- 
tians and the other creatures, since Christians 
of all ages form the ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κτισμάτων, 
until the commencement of the world’s glori- 
fication. Lange with truth brings forward the 
idea that if Christians are ἀπαρχή, they are 
sureties. for the future glorification of the 
world; but that the first believers of Israel in 
their unity are sureties for the future conver- 
sion of the nation, is an introduced idea which 
is not indicated by James. 


CHAP. I. 19. 59 


κτισμάτων αὑτοῦ. But against this is, on the one hand, the added τινα, and on 
the other hand, the existing necessity of conceiving as added to κτισμάτων an 
attribute, as νέων or xaivwv, since the expression τὰ κτίσματα Θεοῦ is not taken 
by itself, those who are born again, but generally, the creatures of God. It 
is still more arbitrary to take ἀπαρχῇ as equivalent to πρῶτοι, in the sense 
of τιμιώτατοι (Oecumenius; Morus: omnium creaturarum carissimi et dignis- 
simi; the favorites among His creatures), and then to refer the verse to 
the dignity of man generally, as the scholiast explains: τὴν ὁρωμένην κτίσιν 
φησῖν, ἧς τιμιώτερον τὸν ἄνθρωπον idetkev.t By αὑτοῦ (Lachmann and Buttmann, 
αὐτοῦ; Tischendorf, ἑαυτοῦ), emphatically added, the creatures are indicated 
as God’s property. 

Ver. 19. To ver. 18 is annexed at first the exhortation to hear, and then 
in ver. 22 the more extended exhortation, not only to be hearers, but also 
doers of the word. By the reading ὥστε, the connection with the preceding 
is evidently expressed, ὥστε being with the following imperative, as in 1 Cor, 
111. 21; Phil. 11, 12 = itaque, therefore. This reading is, however, suspicious, 
as not only predominant authorities declare for the reading ἔστε, but also ἔστε 
might be easily changed into ὥστε, in order to mark the thoughts in this 
verse as an inference from ver. 18. It is true the δέ after ἔστω, conjoined 
with this reading (in B and C), appears to be harsh ; but it may be ex- 
plained from this, that the sentence ἔστω... ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, x.7.2., 15 intro- 
duced as being almost a proverbial expression. The reading of A: ἔστε δὲ 
. . . kal ἔστω, appears to be a correction, in order to unite this verse more 
closely with the preceding. ἔστε may be either indicative (comp. Heb. xii. 
17; usually οἴδατε) or imperative; it is at all events to be referred, not to what 
goes before,? but to what follows, as otherwise τοῦτο, or something similar, 
by which it would be referred back to ver. 18, would require to be added. 
Semler explains it as an indicative, paraphrasing it: non ignoratis istud 
carmen; Ecclus. v. 11: γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου, κιτΔ. As, however, the 
sentence in question is here expressed in different words, so it is not to be 
assumed that James would here refer to that passage in Ecclesiasticus. It 
is thus better to consider ἔστε as an imperative, as it then corresponds to 
μὴ πλανᾶσθε (ver. 16), and serves strongly to impress the following sentence 
on the readers, in favor of which also is the address ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί 
added here as well as there; see also chap ii. 5: ἀκούσατε, dd. μ. dy. — The 
sentence is entirely general : let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow 
to wrath. Whilst Laurentius and others consider this as a sententia generalis, 
which stands in no internal connection with the preceding, but is pressed 
upon the readers in its entire generality, most interpreters supply to ἀκοῦ- 
ow, from the preceding context, τὸν λόγον ἀληθείας ; thus Estius, Gataker, 
Gomar, Piscator, Hornejus, Baumgarten, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Hottinger, 
Gebser, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others; but this is arbitrary, particularly 
as πᾶς ἄνθρωπος points to the universality of the sentence. However, the 


1 Thus Schulthess: Divino rationis et ora- 2 De Wette explains it: *‘ Ye know this, 
tionis munere, cujus ex tot animantium gene- namely, that be has regenerated us; ”’ but this, 
ribus atgue naturis homo solus est particeps, as he himself confesses, gives a wholly unsat- 
principatum dignitatis ei datum cernimus. isfactory sense. 


60 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


intention of James is not to inculcate it on his readers in its general sense, 
but he wishes rather that they, as Christians, should apply it to their Chris- 
tian conduct; so that for them ἀκοῦσαι certainly refers to λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας 
(Heisen, Schneckenburger,! Theile). ὑμῶν is therefore not to be supplied to 
πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, still we may say with Semler: pertinet ad Christianos, quatenus 
sunt Christiani; but the expression is, as part of the general sentence, like- 
wise to be retained in its general meaning; but what holds good of all men, 
in a peculiar manner holds good of Christians. — The ideas ταχύς and βραδύς, 
in the N. T. only here (in Luke xxiv. 25, βραδύς has a different meaning), 
form a direct contrast.2 By βραδὺς εἰς ὀργὴν added to the second clause, James 
announces what kind of speaking he means, namely, speaking ἐξ ὀργῆς.8 But 
from ver. 20 it is evident that by épy7— which, as Cremer correctly remarks, 
denotes not the passive affection, but active displeasure directed toward any 
one — is to be understood sinful and passionate zeal. βραδύς is to be taken 
in both clauses in the same sense, which —as is often the case with expres- 
sions in figurative language — goes beyond the literal and direct idea of the 
word, as Hornejus correctly explains it in reference to the second clause: ita 
jubet tardos ad tram esse, ut ab eo nos prorsus retrahat. Several expositors 
refer both clauses, others at least the second chiefly or alone, to the conduct 
toward God, with or without an express reference to ver. 13.4 But this is 
incorrect; the ὀργή to which James alludes is rather carnal zeal, which will 
censure its neighbor, whose fruit is not εἰρήνη, but ἀκαταστασία (chap. ili. 16). 
The warning is addressed to those Christians who misuse the gospel (the 
λόγος ἀληθείας) as the Pharisees did the law, not for their own sanctification, 
but for the gratification of their censoriousness and quarrelsome temper ; 
see chap. iii. Although James with this exhortation has specially in view 
the conduct of Christians in their assemblies, yet λαλῆσαι must not be re- 
stricted to the idea of mere teaching (Bede, Hornejus, Hottinger, De Wette, 
Briickner, and others). λαλῆσαι is a more comprehensive term than διδάσκειν 
which is included in it. 

Ver. 20 gives the reason of the exhortation βραδὺς εἰς ὀργῆν : For the wrath 
of man works not the righteousness of God. 'The preponderance of authorities 


1 Schneckenburger : quamvis de sensu dubi- 
tari nequeat, nempe de addiscendo λόγῳ ἀλη- 
θείας caveas tamen vocem hance λόγον putes 
grammatice subaudiendam; sed Jacobus regu- 
lam istam generalum... ita hic subnectit, 
uteam ad rem christianam imprimis valere 
moneat. 

2 Asin Philo, De conf. ling., p. 327 B: Bpa- 
δὺς ὠφελῆσαι, ταχὺς βλάψαι (see Dio O., 32). 

3 The circumstance is in favor of this close 
connection of these two last clauses, that if 
λαλῆσαι is here taken in a wider sense (as 
Gunkel thinks), then a different signification 
must be given to βραδύς in the two clauses, as 
ὀργή here, as the following verse shows, must 
be taken in a bad sense. Lange thinks that 
James does not absolutely reject ὀργή; but 
whilst he understands by ὀργή eagerness of 


passion to which one is led from eagerness in 
speaking by warmth, he evidently understands 
this as something to be entirely rejected. Ac- 
cording to Bouman, the anger here is meant to 
which one is inflamed by the λαλεῖν of another. 

4 On Bpad. εἰς τὸ λαλ., Bengel remarks: ut 
nil loguatur contra Deum, nec sinistre de Deo; 
and on ὀργή: ira sive impatientia erga Deum, 
iracundia erga proximum. Gebser explains 
ὀργή = anger, displeasure at God on account of 
the persecutions. Calvin also has this refer- 
ence in view when he says: certe nemo unquam 
bonus erit Dei discipulus nisi qui silendo eum 
audiat; . . . non enim Deus nisi sedato animo 
audiri potest, as is evident from the note: 
(Jacobus) vult proterviam nostram corripere, 
ne .. . intempestive obstrepamus Deo. 


CHAP. I. 20. 61 


decides against the reading κατεργάζεται, and in favor of ἐργάζεται. From the 
fact that δικαιοσύνην is twice in the N. T., namely Acts x. 35 and Heb. xi. 33, 
joined with the simple verb, it does not follow that ἐργάζεται is a later correc- 
tion (against De Wette, Wiesinger), especially as κατεργάζεσθαι is also found 
united with abstract substantives, as in Rom. i. 27 with τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην, in 
Rom. ii. 9 with τὸ κακόν, and in Rom. vii. 18 with τὸ καλόν. With the read- 
ing épyagera, —and also with κατεργάζεται, when this latter, as is frequently 
the case (see especially Rom. ii. 9, 10), is synonymous with the former, — 
δικαιοσύνη is equivalent to τὸ δίκαιον, as is frequently the case in the O. and 
N. T.; see Acts x. 35 above referred to, and the frequently occurring phrase: 
ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, Gen. xviii. 19; Isa. lvi. 1; Matt. vi. 1; 1 John ii. 29, iii. 
7,10; Rev. xxii. 11. Θεοῦ is added in contrast to dvdpd¢ for the sake of a 
more exact statement, so that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is the righteousness willed by God } 
(similar to τὸ δίκαιον ἐνώπιον τοὺ Θεοῦ, Acts iv. 19; Luther: “The wrath of 
man works not that which is right before God”); so Beza, Hornejus, Wolf, 
Bengel, De Wette, Bouman, and others, correctly explain it. The opposite 
of δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ ἐργάζεσθαι is ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθαι, chap. ii. 9 (comp. Matt. 
vii. 1: ἐργαζ. τὴν ἀνομίαν; 1 Mace. ix. 23: épyat. τὴν ἀδικίαν ; also comp. Rom. 
11, 10: épyag. τὸ ἀγαθόν; Gal. vi. 10). James was the more constrained to 
give prominence to this idea, as ὀργῇ itself and the words flowing from it 
were considered by the pharisaical disposition of Christians, against whom 
this warning is directed, and of whom it was said: ζῆλον Θεοῦ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
kar’ ἐπίγνωσιν, Rom. x. 2, as something that was pleasing to God. With the 
reading κατεργάζεται this verb may also be equivalent to effect, to bring 
about (as ver. 3). Gebser, Grashof, and others understand, in accordance 
with this view, by δικαιοσύνη Θεοὺ: “the condition of justification before 
God;” but, on the one hand, an unsuitable thought is expressed by this, 
and, on the other hand, a mode of expressing the idea δικαιοσύνη τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
peculiar to Paul, is without ceremony ascribed to James. But as little is it 
to be justified when Wiesinger, following Hofmann (Schrifibew. i., ed. 1, 
p- 548 f.), finds expressed in the words of James, that “one by wrathful 
zeal effects not on others the dx, Θεοῦ, i.e., that state of righteousness in 
which God begets men by His word of truth.”? Though δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ can 
denote the righteousness wrought by God, yet this idea is here unsuitable, 
since no man could entertain the opinion that his wrath could do what 
can only be effected by God. Also in this case James would only emphasize 
an impossibility of opy7, whereas he was required to bring prominently for- 
ward its rejection; moreover, on others is inserted into the text. The same 


1 Itis true the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ 
occurs not elsewhere in this sense; but this can 
be the less an objection to it, as the relation in 
which the genitive Θεοῦ is placed to δικαιοσύνη 
is not entirely opposed to the genitive of rela- 
tion, as is evident. if we designate the dix. ©. 
as that δικαιοσύνη which is actually so accord- 
ing to the determination of God. 

2 In the second edition (p. 628), Hofmann 
has indeed altered the words, but not the 


thought, in the explanation given in the first 
edition. When he defines the distinction in 
the use of the idea δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, in Rom. i. 
17 and here, to consist in this, that Paul speaks 
of justification, James of regeneration, the 
untenableness of his explanation is the more 
evident, for that ὀργή produces regeneration 
could occur to no one. 

3 Contrary to the biblical use of language, 
Oecumenius explains the expression δικαιοσύνη 


62 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


reasons are also decisive against the explanation of Briickner (“the wrath 
of man works not the righteousness which God accomplishes —this generally 
stated both in respect to the ἀνήρ and in respect to others on whom one 
strives to work”), in which a twofold reference is arbitrarily assumed. 
Briickner correctly rejects the explanation of Lange, that James speaks 
against “the delusion of wrath, which imagines to administer and accom- 
plish in the world the righteousness of God especially against unbelievers,” 
because there is no reference to this in the context; it is, moreover, linguis- 
tically unmaintainable, as ἐργάζεσθαι does not mean ‘to administer and 
accomplish.” — ἀνδρός stands here as in vv. 8 and 12; it forms a contrast 
neither to the child (Thomas: ira fortis et deliberate non dicit pueri, qui cito 
transit), nor to the woman (Bengel: sexus virilis maxime iram alit), nor to 
ἄνθρωπος, ver. 19 (Lange). 

Ver. 21. James infers (διό) from the thought in ver. 20 the exhortation 
ἐν πραύτητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον, With evident reference to ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ 
ἀληθείας (ver. 18). He places before this exhortation the participial clause : 
ἀποθέμενοι... κακίας; laying aside all filthiness and abundance of wickedness, 
1.6.) all filthy and abundantly prevalent wickedness. The word purapia (am. Aey. 
in the N. T.) is here figurative (synonymous with ἀκαθαρσία in Rom. vi. 19 
and other places), as ῥυπαρός and ῥυπαρεύω, Rev. xxii. 11 (ῥυπαρός occurs in its 
literal sense in chap. ii. 2: ῥύπος in 1 Pet. iii. 21). Several interpreters (Cal- 
vin, Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten, Hornejus, Bouman, Lange, and others) take 
it here as standing alone, equivalent to moral uncleanness (see 2 Cor. vii. 1: 
πᾶς μολυσμὸς σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος), either generally “every immoral disposition,” 
or specifically as avaritia (Storr), or scortatio (Laurentius), or vitia intempe- 
rantiae, gulae et lasciviae (Heisen), or “ filth in a religious theocratical sense” 
(Lange); but it is better to join ῥυπαρίαν with κακίας (Theile, De Wette, 
Wiesinger, and others), so that the ethical judgment of the author on the 
κακία is thereby expressed (comp. Acts xv. 20; Rev. xvii. 4), equivalent to 
πᾶσαν κακίαν ῥυπαράν, or less exactly ῥυπαίνουσαν τὸν ἄνθρωπον (Schol. on Matt.) ; 
only the idea is more strongly brought forward by the substantive than by 
the adjective. The word περισσεία, united to ῥυπαρίαν by the copulative καί 
(not, as Schneckenburger thinks, exegetical; in the cited passages, John i. 16 
and 1 Cor. iii. 5, the position of καὶ is entirely different), foreign to classical 
Greek, has in the N. T. the signification abundance ; properly, “ abundance 
flowing over the measure,” which Lange incorrectly renders “outflow, com- 
munication of life;” see Rom. v. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 2, x. 15. Nevertheless, 
the word has been here taken in a meaning corresponding to ῥυπαρία, and 
has been explained as = περίσσωμα excrementum (Beza, Piscator, Erasmus, 
Schmid, and others), or also growth (Lésner, Pott, Hottinger, Kern, Schnecken- 
burger, De Wette). But both meanings are arbitrary. The defenders of 
the second explanation indeed appeal to the passage in Philo, De Vict. Off. 


as equivalent to ἕξις ἐν ψυχῇ kar’ ἀξίαν ἑκάστῳ probatur.— Several commentators (also Kern) 
ἀπονεμητική. Pott, wholly arbitrarily, refers to this verse cite Ecclus. i. 21: οὐ δυνήσεται 
the verse to the teachers of the Christian reli- θυμὸς ἄδικος δικαιωθῆναι; butincorrectly, since 
gian, paraphrasing it: Iratus nequit docere δικαιωθῆναι has an entirely different meaning 
religionem christianum prout fas est Deoque from κατεργάζεσθαι δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ. ς 


CHAP. I. 91. 63 


p- 854 B: mepiréuvecte . . . τὰς περιττὰς φύσεις (fortasse ἐμφύσεις, De Wette) rod 
ἡγεμονικοῦ; but from this passage it does not follow that περισσεία can 
be explained de ramis in vite vel arbore abundantibus falceque resecandis 
(Losner). It is equally unjustifiable when Kiittner, Michaelis, Augusti, 
Gebser, Bouman, and others explain περισσεία κακίας as “ κακία surviving from 
earlier times,” and thus take περισσεία as synonymous with περίσσευμα (Mark 
viii. 8). Against all these arbitrary views, Theile, Wiesinger, Briickner, cor- 
rectly retain the word in the same sense which it has elsewhere in the N. T., 
so that περισσεία κακίας is the abundance of κακία, i.e., the abundantly existing 
κακία; Only ἐν ὑμῖν is hardly to be supplied as if James had only his readers 
specially in view (Theile: quod lectoribus peculiare erat). —xaxia is not here 
synonymous with πονηρία (1 Cor. v. 8) = vitiositas (Semler, Theile, and others), 
but according to the context, in contrast with ἐν πραύτητι, as in Eph. iy. 31, 
Col. iii. 8, Tit. iii. 8,1 Pet. ii. 1,a more special idea, namely, the hostile 
disposition toward our neighbor which we call malignity (Cremer: malevo- 
lence, as social faultiness). Wiesinger inaccurately takes it as equivalent 
to ὀργῇ, as thal is only one cf the proofs of κακία; incorrectly, Rosenmiiller = 
morositas.1 On ἀποθέμενοι, comp. Eph. iv. 25; 1 Pet. ii. 1; Heb. xii. 1.3 
The participle precedes as a subordinate thought to δέξασθε, because in con- 
sequence of man’s sinful nature room only can be made for the good by the 
rejection of the bad. Also, where similar sentences are co-ordinate, the ex- 
hortation to ἀπυτίθεσθαι precedes; comp. Rom. xiii. 12, Eph. iv. 22, 23, and 
also the exhortation of Christ: μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε, Mark i. 15.—In the 
positive exhortation: ἐν πραύτητι δεξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον], ἐν πραύτητι emphati- 
cally precedes, in contrast to the κακία from which flows ὀργή. πραύτης 
(= πραότης) denotes a loving, gentle disposition toward our neighbor ; comp. 
1 Cor. iv. 21,2 Tim. ii. 25, Tit. iii. 2, and other passages; the opposite is 
ὀργιλότης (Pape’s Gr. Worterb.); incorrectly, Calvin: Hoe verbo significat mo- 
destiam et facilitatem mentis ad discendum compositae. ἐν πραύτητι does not 
therefore mean docili animo (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Hottinger), nor “with a 
modest disposition, which recognizes the good deeds of Christianity ” (Geb- 
ser). Also ἐν zp. δέξασθε is not a pregnant construction, as if the sense were: 
monet... illo λόγῳ duce πραύτητα exerceant (Schneckenburger) ; but James 
exhorts to the reception of the word ἐν πραὕτητι, in contrast to those who hear 
the word in order to use it as a weapon of hatred (condemning others).— 
δέξασθε (opp. to λαλῆσαι, ver. 19) corresponds to ἀκοῦσαι, but expresses 
more than that, namely, “the inner reception, the taking hold of it with 
the heart;” comp. 1 Thess. i. 6. The object belonging to it: τὸν λόγον 
ἔμφυτον, can only be the same as what was called the λόγος ἀληθείας in 


1 Meyer’s translation: malice (Rom. i. 29), 
malicious disposition (Col. iii. 8), would also 
not be entirely suitable, but too special. How 
Luther has understood the idea, cannot be 
determined from his translation wickedness 
(Bosheit); since he thus constantly renders 
κακία, it may be taken in a general or in a 
special sense ; the word ““ badness ”’ (Schlechtig- 
keit) does not occur with him. 


2 To the assertion of Lange, that ἀποθέμενοι 
is not to be rendered putting off, because the 
reference is not figuratively to the putting off 
of filthy garments, but removing ; the passages 
Rom. xiii. 12 (ἀποθώμεθα.. . . ἐνδυσώμεθα) and 
Eph. iv. 22, 24, and the etymology of the word, 
are opposed, 


64 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


ver. 18 (Wiesinger); it is neither “the reason innate in man,”?! nor the 
so-called inner light of the mystics, nor the gospel “in its subjective 
form of life” (Lange). The verb δέχεσθαι is opposed to these explana- 
tions. James designates the gospel a Adyov ἔμφυτον, inasmuch as it was 
no longer strange to the hearts of his readers as Christians; also be- 
cause it was not merely transmitted (Hottinger: ἔμφυτος = traditus), but 
implanted.» The verb δέξασθε does not conflict with this, as the word 
by which the new birth is effected among Christians is to them ever 
proclaimed anew, and must by them be ever received anew, in order that 
the new life may be preserved and increased in them. It is therefore not 
necessary, against the use of language, to change the idea: verbum quod 
implantatum or insertum est, into verbum quod implantatur or inseritur, or to 
assume here a prolepsis, as is undoubtedly the case in 1 Cor. i. 8, Phil. iii. 21 
(see Meyer in loco), and 1 Thess. iii. 13 (Liinemann in doco), and with Calvin 
to explain it: ita suscipite ut vere inseratur (similarly Semler, De Wette,? and 
others). The mode in which the adjective is united with the substantive is 
opposed to a prolepsis, which would be only imaginable were it said: τὸν 
λόγον ἔμφυτον ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, or something similar. — For the strengthening 
of the exhortation expressed, James annexes to τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον the clause 
τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν, by which, on the one hand, the value of the 
λόγος is prominently brought forward, and, on the other hand, is indicated 
what result ought to arise from the hearing of the word. By the verb δυνά- 
μενον, not the freedom of the human will (Serrarius: quod potest salvare, ut 
arbitrit libertas indicetur), but the power of the word, is emphasized; it is, as 
Paul says, δύναμις Θεοὺ εἰς σωτηρίαν πάντι τῷ πιστεύοντι (Rom. 1. 16). But if it 
has this power, man must receive it, and that in a right manner, so that 
it may prove its efficacy in him and save his soul. It is to be observed 
that James says this of his readers, whom he had previously designated as 
born again (ver. 18). Thus, according to James, Christians by the new 
birth do not as yet possess σωτηρία (the future salvation), but its obtainment 
is conditioned by their conduct. — Instead of τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν, James might 
simply have written ὑμᾶς, but Schneckenburger correctly warns: Cave pro 
mera sumas circumscriptione personalis; animi enim proprie res agitur; see 
chap. v. 20. 

Ver. 22. The exhortations given in ver. 19 form the starting-point for 
what follows. The next section, to the end of chap. ii., is attached to the 


1 Oecumenius: τὸν διακριτικὸν Tod βελτίονος 
καὶ τοῦ χείρονος" καθ᾽ ὃ καὶ λογικοὶ ἐσμὲν Kai 
λεγόμεθα; see Constit. Apost., viii. 12: νόμον 
δέδωκας ἔμφυτον. 

2 Lange incorrectly explains the ἐν ὑμῖν to 
be supplied to ἔμφυτον “in and among you,” 
referring it to the Jewish Christians and the 
Jews. 

3 De Wette expresses himself doubtfully: 
“« Hither the adjective is used proleptically, or, 
which I prefer, it is the word implanted by the 
second birth; but by this also, on account of 
δέξασθε, a prolepsis occurs, ‘receive the word 


of truth, that it may grow in you by that new 
birth.’ " But opposed to this, it is to be ob- 
served that the word is not implanted by the 
second birth, but that the second birth is the 
fruit of the implanted word. In conclusion 
De Wette remarks: ‘‘It must be taken rather 
as a reference to the whole of Christendom 
than to individuals: the word implanted in us 
Christians.’”’ ‘But the individual is only a 
member of the Church by having the word of 
God implanted in him. Briickner has given 
the correct explanation. 


CHAP. I. 23. 65 


thought ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, Which is continued in δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον. 
The word must be so heard and received that it produces a corresponding. 
activity. James first expresses this thought briefly and definitely: “Be ye 
doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” The 
verb γίνεσθε is neither intended to express the successionem perpetuam horum 
exercitiorum (Semler), nor to indicate that hitherto the readers had not been 
ποιηταὶ λόγου; this indication is contained in the whole exhortation, but not 
* in the verb, which is to be translated not by become, but by be; comp. chap. 
iii. 1; Matt. vi. 16, x. 16, xxiv. 44; John xx. 27; Rom. xii. 16.1 The par- 
ticle dé unites this verse with the preceding as its completion. The readers 
ought to be ποιηταὶ λόγου, namely, of the λόγος ἔμφυτος (ver. 21), or of the λόγος 
ἀληθείας (ver. 18), the gospel, inasmuch as it requires a definite Christian con- 
duct, and on this account in ver. 25 is expressly called a νόμος. On ποιηταΐ, 
comp. Jas. iv. 11; 1 Mace. ii. 67; Rom. ii. 138 (John vii. 19: ποιεῖν τὸν νόμον); 
in the classical language, ὁ ποιητὴς νόμου is the lawgiver. Theile correctly 
observes: Substantiva plus sonant quam participia; the substantive expresses 
the enduring relation. —In the reading μὴ ἀκροαταὶ μόνον, μύνον is closely united 
with ἀκροαταί : not such who are only heaters. The word ἀκροατῆς, in classical 
Greek “an attentive hearer,” occurs in the N. T. only here and in Rom. 
ii. 13, but both times without that additional meaning. On the thought, 
comp. besides Rom. ii. 13 (where the same contrast is expressed), Matt. 
vii. 21 ff.; Luke xi. 28; John xiii. 17. — παραλογιζόμενοι belongs to the sub- 
ject contained in γίνεσθε (De Wette, Wiesinger), deceiving your own selves, 
and not as a more exact definition of dxpoarai, “hearers who deceive them- 
selves ” (Stolz, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Lange). The import of the word 
(besides here in the N. T. only in Col. ii. 4,in the O. T. Gen. xxix. 25, 
LXX.; synonymous expressions are found in ver. 26; Gal. vi. 3; 1 John 
i. 8) is to draw false inferences, to deceive by sophistical reasoning. The warn- 
ing is directed against such who deceive themselves by sophisms on the 
utility of mere hearing. 

Ver. 23. This exhortation is confirmed by a comparison. Therefore: ὅτι, 
which is not superfluous (Pott). This verse expresses the similitude; ver. 24 
the tertium comparationis. A hearer, who is not a doer, is to be compared to 
a man who contemplates his bodily form in a glass. Hornejus, Rosenmiiller, 
Semler, Pott, and others attach to the word κατανοεῖν the additional meaning 
of a transitory observation, against the etymology and the linguistic use 
of the word (comp. Luke xii. 24, 37; Acts vii. 31, 32, xi. 6). The point of 
transitoriness, or, more correctly, of transitory contemplation, is contained 
not in the verb, but in the situation, which in ver. 24 is prominently brought 
forward by xa? ἀπελήλυθεν. On the rhetorical usage of again resuming the 
foregoing subject (which is here expressed by εἴ τίς, «.7.4.) by οὗτος, see 
Winer, p. 144 (E. T., 160); A. Buttmann, p. 262 (E. T., 347); on ἔοικε, 


1 Meyer certainly explains the imperative usage, to consider γίνου as equivalent to ἴσθι, 


γίνου, γίνεσθε, uniformly by ‘‘ become thou,” is explained from the fact that the Christian 
“become ye;”’ but this meaning is frequently must yet ever more become that which he as a 
retained in a manner more or less forced; Christian is. 


comp. especially John xx. 27. The N. Ὁ, 


66 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, 


see ver. 6; dvdpi, as in ver. 8, and frequently with James.1— 7d πρόσωπον τῆς 
γενέσεως αὐτοῦ. By πρόσωπον is here meant not the whole form (Baumgarten, 
Hensler, Pott, Schneckenburger), but the face. By τῆς γενέσεως is ‘more 
plainly indicated the sphere of mere material perception, from which the 
comparison is taken, as distinguished from the ethical sphere of ἀκροᾶσθαι " 
(Wiesinger). γένεσις denotes not so much the natural life as the natural 
birth, so that the phrase is to be interpreted: the countenance which one pos- 
Sesses by his natural birth. See Eustathius in Od., ix. p. 663, 25.2 — Whether 
αὐτοῦ belongs to the whole idea, or only to the genitive, is uncertain. Winer, 
p- 212, leaves it undecided; Wiesinger is for the first rendering; but the 
union here (as well as in Col. i. 13) with the genitive appears to be more 
natural. 

Ver. 24. With this verse begins the explanation of the image given in 
ver. 25 (therefore γάρ), whilst κατανοεῖν τὸ πρόσωπον τ. γεν. αὑτοῦ is again 
resumed by κατενόησεν ἑαυτόν. By ἀπελήλυθεν the point of the mere transitori- 
ness of the contemplation in the glass only before presupposed is brought 
forward, and by ἐπελάθετο the result of such a contemplation is added, by 
which the points of application, Which James employs, are brought out. 
The emphasis lies on ἀπελῆλυθεν and εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο. The form of represen- 
tation is here the same as in ver. 11. It is not a particular instance which 
may occur (Wiesinger), but a general statement which is here introduced in 
the form of a single incident, as the contemplating one’s self in the glass is 
always only a temporary and not a permanent state. The hearing of the 
word answers to κατανοεῖν ; the averting of the mind from what is heard, to 
ἀπέρχεσθαι; and the being unconcerned about what is heard, by which the 
realization of the word in the life is prevented, to εὐθέως ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι. James 
can only think on man according to his ethical condition in relation to the 
demands of the divine will, as corresponding to πρόσωπον τ. y. or ἑαυτόν in 
the application. It is true that he does not definitely state this; but from 
this it does not follow that James, overlooking all other considerations, has 
had only in view generally the contents of the word, because the comparison 
of the word with a glass, which gives to him who looks in it to see his own 
image, would be without meaning.? On the use of the perfect (ἀπελήλυθεν) 
between the aorists, see Winer, p. 243 f. (E. T., 278). — On ὁποῖος ἣν, Wie- 
singer correctly remarks, “namely, in the glass.” 

Ver. 25 does not give the simple application of the image, but rather 
describes, with reference to the foregoing image, the right hearer, and says 


of him that he is μακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὑτοῦ. In this description the three 


1 The remark of Paes, approved of by Lange, 
is curious: wiri obiter tantum solent specula 
‘intueri, muliebre autem est, curiose se ad 
speculum componere. 

2 Lange argues against this explanation, 
vwhilst, mingling in.a most confused manner 
ithe image employed with the thing itself, he 
explains πρόσωπον as “the image of the inner 
man’s appearance according to his sinful con- 
. dition.” 

3 According to most interpreters, “the de- 


pravity of the natural man” is chiefly to be 
thought on; but this is not entirely suitable, 
as James addresses Christians who as such are 
no longer natural men. In a wholly arbitrary 
manner is the reference inserted by some in 
κατενόησεν to spots which disfigure the face. 
Wolf: de tralatitia speculi inspectione loquitur 
Apostolus; talis vero efficit, ut maculas non 
perspicias atque adeo de iis abstergendis non 
cogites; similarly Pott and others. 


CHAP, I. 95. 67 


points named in ver. 24 are carefully observed: παρακύψας εἰς, κιτ.λ., answers 
to κατενόησεν (ἐν ἐσύπτρῳ), παραμείνας to ἀπελήλυθεν, and οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονὴς 
to ἐπελάθετο. ‘The sentence consists of a simple combination of subject and 
predicate ; γενόμενος is not to be resolved into the finite verb yivera (Pott). 

The predicate commences, after the subject is summed up, in οὗτος with 
μακάριος. --- This is also the case with the textus receptus, where a οὗτος is put 
before οὐκ ἀκροατῆς ; for, since with this reading the first οὗτος is simply re- 
sumed by the second οὐτος (before μακάριος), equivalent to hic, inquam, the 
words οὐκ ἀκροατὴς... ἔργου only serve to give a more exact designation of 
the subject, παρακύψας... καὶ παραμείνας being thus more clearly defined. 
Thus these words begin not the apodosis or principal sentence, as if James 
would here, in contrast to ver. 24, show that the right hearing and appropria- 
tion leads to the doing, (and thereby) to the blessedness of doing (against 
Wiesinger). Were this his object, he would have been obliged to put the 
finite verb instead of the participle γενόμενος, and a καί after ἔργου. The 
subject is accordingly: but whosoever looks into the perfect law of liberty and 
continueth therein, being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man. 
— The aorist participles are explained from the close connection of this 
verse with the preceding, where the same tense was used. There is no copu- 
lative καί before the participial clause οὐκ ἀκροατὴς, x.7.4., because the doing of 
the law is the necessary consequence of the continued looking into it, and it 
would otherwise have the appearance as if παρακύπτειν and παραμένειν could 
take place without ποιεῖν following. The verb παρακύπτειν (properly, bending 
one’s self near an object in order to view it more exactly, Luke xxiv. 12; John 
xx. 5, 11; 1 Pet. i. 12; Ecclus. xiv. 23, xxi. 23) refers back, indeed, to κατα- 
νοεῖν, but is a stronger idea. James has fittingly chosen this verb as verbum 
ad imaginem speculi humi aut mensae impositi adaptatum (Schneckenburger ; see 
also Theile, Wiesinger). Luther inaccurately translates it: looketh through. 
As the accent is on παρα, the verb παραμείνας is used afterwards. By εἰς is 
expressed not only the direction to something, but the intensity of the look 
into the inner nature of the law. παραμείνας (not continueth therein, as Luther 
translates it, but thereat) is added to παρακύψας, ---- without the article, because 
the two points are to be considered as most closely connected, — indicating 
the continued consideration of the νόμος, from which action necessarily 
follows. Schneckenburger incorrectly gives to the verb παραμένειν here 
(appealing to Acts xiv. 22; Gal. iii. 10; Heb. viii. 9) the meaning to 
“observe the law;” but the subject treated of here is not the observance, but 
“the appropriation which leads to action” (Wiesinger), or “the remaining 
in the yielding of one’s self to the object by contemplating it” (Lange). By 
νόμος τέλειος ὁ τῆς ἐλευθερίας 2 is meant neither the O. T. law, nor lex naturalis 
(Schulthess), but λόγος ἀληθείας (ver. 18), thus the gospel, inasmuch as it 
- 


2 Lange agrees in essentials with this ex- 
planation, but he thinks that by it ‘the full 
energy of the idea is not preserved; ” it should 
rather have been said that ‘‘ the παρακύψας and 
παραμείνας, as such, is ποιητὴς ἔργον yevo- 
μενος ;᾽ but the looking in and continuing are 
evidently in themselves not identical with the 


doing of which James speaks, however neces- 
sarily the latter results from the former. 

2 Kern incorrectly maintains that this ex- 
pression is formed according to the Pauline 
phraseology: νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν 
Xp. ᾿Ιησοῦ, Rom. viii. 2; νόμος τῆς πίστεως, 
Rom. iii. 27; νόμος Χριστοῦ, Gal. vi. 2; as if 


| 


θ8 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


places before the Christian — by reason of redemption — the rule of his life. 
This evangelical νόμος, indeed, resembles the O. T. νόμος in expressing no other 
will of God, but differs from it in that it only is the νόμος τῆς ἐλευθερίας, the 
νόμος τέλειος. It not only confronts man as enjoining, but, resting on the love 
of God, it creates the new life from which joyful obedience springs forth 
voluntarily and unconstrained; it gives ἐλευθερία, which the O. T. νόμος was 
not able to give, and thus proves itself as the perfect law in contrast to 
the imperfect law of the Old Covenant. It is true that even in the O. T. the 
sweetness of the law was subject of praise (Ps. xix. 8-11), but the life- 
giving power belonged to the law only in an imperfect manner, because the 
covenant on which it rested was as yet only one of promise and not of fulfil- 
ment. It is accordingly incorrect to explain the additional attribute as if 
James considered the O. T. law, according to the Pauline manner, as a ζυγὸς 
δουλείας (Gal. v. 1), for of this there is no trace.1 Many expositors under- 
stand by νόμος τέλειος, x.7.4., the gospel, as the joyful message of salvation, or 
the doctrina evangelii, or simply gratia evangelii, namely, in contrast to the 
O. T. economy; which, however, corresponds neither to the language of James 
nor to his mode of contemplation. —In the additional participial sentence, 
the ideas ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς and ποιητὴς ἔργου are opposed to each other. 
ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς (the word, foreign to classical Greek, is in the N. T. a 
ἅπ. Aey.; it is found in Ecclus. xi. 27; among classical writers; ἐπιλήσμη, 
ἐπιλησμοσύνη) 15 = ἀκρ. ἐπιλήσμων, a hearer to whom forgetfulness belongs. To 
ποιητῆς, ἔργου is attached in order to make still more prominent the idea of 
activity, which indeed is already contained in ποιητής. The singular does not 
properly stand for the plural (Grotius: effector corum operum, quae evangelica 
lex exigit), but “is designed to import that it here results in something, in 
the doing of work” (Wiesinger). Those ideas, which appear not to corre- 
spond, yet form a true antithesis, since the law is inoperative on the forgetful 
hearer, but incites him who is an attentive hearer to a corresponding activity 
of life. James says of him who is thus described: he (otroc) is blessed in his 
deed. ποίησις in N. T. ἀπ. λεγ., in Ecclus. xix. 20: ποίησις νόμου. The prepo- 
sition ἐν is not to be exchanged with διά, for by ἐν the internal connection of 
doing and blessedness is marked; Briickner: ‘‘the blessing innate in such 
doing is meant.” ἔσται is therefore not to be referred to the future life; but 
it is by it announced what is even here directly connected with the ποίησις ; 
James, however, certainly considered this μακαριότης as permanent. The 
thought here expressed refers to the last words of ver. 21, completing them, 
showing that the λόγος has the effect there stated (σῶσαι τὰς ψυχάς) } in him 
who so embraces it that it leads him to ποίησις.3 


James must have borrowed the designation of 
what was to him the cardinal point of Christian 
life from another, and could not himself ori- 
ginate it. 

1 It is to be observed that even in-the so- 
called apostolic council at Jerusalem James 
did not, as Peter, call the law ἃ ζυγός. 

2 Laurentius adds to the last words of the 
verse: ‘Sc. non ex merito ipsius operis, sed 


ex promissione gratuita; ” but this 15 ἃ caution 
foreign to the context. Lange inappropriately” 
intermingles ideas when he reckons to this 
ποίησις particularly confession, and thinks that 
James above all things indicated that the Jews 
should confess Christ, and that the Jewish 
Christians should fully acknowledge their 
Christian brethren from the Gentiles. 


CHAP. I. 26, 27. 69 


Ver. 26. Whilst James —in contrast to the hearers who fail in proof by 
works — will describe the true θρησκεία (ver. 27), he first refers to the false 
θρησκεία of those who —slothful in action —are ταχεῖς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι (ver. 19). 
If any one thinks to serve God, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his heart, his 
worship is vain. — εἴ τις doxei]. δοκεῖ here denotes (as in Matt. vi. 7, xxiv. 44; 
1 Cor. iii. 18; otherwise in 1 Cor. vii. 40) the false opinion which one has of 
something; it is not = videtur (Calvin, Gataker, Theile, and others) ; Luther 
correctly translates: “if any one imagines.” — θρῆσκος εἰναι]. θρῆσκος, Which 
elsewhere occurs neither in the N. T. nor in the classics (the substantive be- 
sides here and in ver. 27, in the N. T. in Col. ii. 18 and Acts xxvi. 5), is not 
equivalent to εὐσέβεια, inasmuch as it refers to external worship, the manifes- 
tation of εὐσέβεια, without, however, having in itself the secondary idea of 
mere externality. Incorrectly Theile = religiosus singulatim cujus nimia, 
nimis externa est religio, superstitiosus. In an arbitrary manner Schnecken- 
burger infers from the adjectives καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος (ver. 27) that it is here 
said of θρησκεία, quam in accurata lustrationem observatione constantem puta- 
bant Judaei ac Judaecochristiani,! of which there is no trace in the whole 
Epistle. The following words: μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν τὴν γλῶσσαν αὑτοῦ, indicate in 
what the θρησκεία of the readers consisted. It is incorrect, with Rosenmiiller, 
Theile, and others, to supply exempli causa, and, as most interpreters do, to 
resolve the participle by although ; James will blame those who reckon zeal 
in speaking as a sign of @pyoxeia.2 The verb χαλιναγωγεῖν, in the N. T. only 
in James, is also found in classical language only in the later classics; comp. 
the expression in Plato, De Legg. ii.: ἀχάλινον κεκτημένοι τὸ or6ua. — By the 
second participial sentence: ἀλλὰ ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὑτοῦ, James expresses his 
judgment — already indicated by the expression μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν ---- Οὐ the 
opinion of serving God by λαλεῖν ἐν ὀργῇ. Pott correctly: 86. 60 quod nimiam 
docendi licentiam et linguae extemperantiam pro vera θρησκείᾳ habet. The 
clause belongs not to the apodosis (Schneckenburger), but, as in form so in 
meaning, is closely connected with the preceding participle. The expres- 
sion ἀπατᾷν καρδίαν αὑτοῦ corresponds to παραλογίζεσθαι ἑαυτόν (ver. 22), but is 
a stronger form, although it does not indicate only the consequence resulting 
from zeal (Lange).? Erasmus incorrectly explains ἀπατᾷν by sinere aberrare. 
The apodosis, which emphatically begins with τούτου, declares that such a 
θρησκεία is not only without fruit (Baumgarten), but without actual contents, 
is thus foolish and vain, corresponding to the thought: ὀργὴ δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ 
οὐ (κατ)εργάζεται (ver. 20). | 

Ver. 27. To θρησκεία μάταιος is opposed θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ τῷ 


1 Some Catholicinterpreters, Salmero, Paes, 
and others, refer the expression to the observ- 
ance of the so-called consilia Christi, particu- 
larly to voluntary circumcision for the sake of 
the kingdom of heaven. 

2 Rauch also thinks that ‘the participles 
must certainly be resolved by although ;”’ but 
by this explanation all indication is wanting 
of that on which those blamed by James rest 
θρησκεία; also what follows (ver. 27), where 
the nature of true θρησκεία is given, forms no 


appropriate antithesis to this verse. Briickner 
explains it: ** Whosoever seeks worship in 
striving by teaching to work on others;’’ here 
the participle is correctly resolved, but the full 
meaning is not given to the verb. Correctly, 
Lange: ‘*Those who, by their fanatical zeal, 
wanted to make good their pretensions of being 
the true soldiers of God.” 

3 Comp. Test. Napht., III. p. 665: μὴ σπου- 
Sagere . . « ἐν λόγοις κενοῖς ἀπατᾷν Tas ψυχὰς 
ὑμῶν. 


70 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


Oc]. καθαρός and ἀμίαντος are synonymous expressions (Pott, Theile, and 
others); the second word does not add any new idea to the first. Some 
expositors (Baumgarten, Bengel, Knapp, Wiesinger) arbitrarily refer the 
first word to what is internal, and the second to what is external. ‘The 
second word ἀμίαντος (which occurs only here and in Heb. vii. 26, xiii. 4; 1 
Pet. i. 4), corresponding to its connection with μιαΐνω, μιάσμα, brings more 
vividly forward purity as a being free from that by which the holy is defiled. 
The purity of true θρησκεία is, by the words παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, x.7.A., marked as 
absolute. παρά, in the. judgment of, equivalent to ἐνώπιον, as in 1 Pet. ii. 20; 
comp. Winer, p. 352 (E. T., 395) ; Schirlitz, p. 340. That by this “the 
attitude of a servant before the face of the commanding lord” (Lange) is 
indicated, is a pure fiction. To τῷ Θεῷ is emphatically added καὶ πατρί, by 
which the relation of God, which the author has chiefly in view, is expressed : 
that of love. God, by reason of His love, can only esteem that worship as 
pure which is the expression of love. The contents of pure worship is given 
in the following infinitive clauses, according to its positive and negative side; 
still James evidently does not intend to give an exhaustive definition, but 
he merely brings forward —in reference to the wants of his readers — two 
chief points. Hermas, I. 2, Jand. 8, gives a description of these two sides 
of worship, comprehending as much as possible all particulars. The first 
point is: the visiting of the widows and the fatherless in their affliction, as a 
manifestation of compassionate love. If it is said that the particular here 
stands for the universal (the species pro genere, Hottinger, Theile, and 
others); yet it'is to be observed that elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures com- 
passion is adduced as the most direct proof of love. The verb ἐπισκέπτεσθαι 
here, as in Matt. xxv. 36, 43, Jer. xxiii. 2, Zech. xi. 16, Ecclus. vii. 35, 
refers to the visiting of the suffering, in order to help them. By the expla- 
nation: “to be careful of them” (Lange), the view of a concrete instance 
is introduced ; ὀρφανοί are placed first, in close connection with πατρί, as God 
in Ps. Ixviii. 6 is expressly called ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ὀρφανῶν ; see also Ecclus. iv. 10: 
γίνου ὀρφανοῖς ὡς πατήρ. --- The words ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὑτῶν are not an idle addition, 
but mark the condition in which the orphans and widows are found, to show . 
the necessity and object of ἐπισκέπτεσθαι. ---- Ππ the second infinitive clause, 
which is added with rhetorical emphasis, ἀσυνδετῶς,2 to the first, ἄσπιλον stands 
first as the chief idea. The same expression is in 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Pet. iii. 
14 (in its proper sense, 1 Pet. i. 19). The addition ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, more ex- 
actly defining ἄσπιλον τηρεῖν, is neither dependent merely on τηρεῖν (Ps. xii. 
8, exli. 9) nor merely on ἄσπιλον, but on the combined idea. ‘The sense is: 
to preserve himself from the world (από = ἐκ, John xvii. 15; comp. also the 
form προσέχειν ἀπό, Matt. xvi. 12), so that he is not polluted by it (so also 
Lange). By κόσμος not merely earthly things, so far as they tempt to sin 


1 The combination ὀρφανοὶ καὶ χῆραι is found 
only here in the N. T.; it often occurs in the 
O.T.and Apocrypha, where sometimes opfavot 
and sometimes χῆραι are named first. 

2 The asyndeton is thus explained, that 
James considered the visiting of the orphans, 


etc., as keeping one’s self unspotted from the 
world, being in contradiction with the peculiar 
charms of the world. Lange observes: “ΤῊ 
two clauses are not simply co-ordinate, but 
the second is the reverse side or sequence of 
the first, its pure antithesis.” 


CHAP. I. 91. te 


(Schneckenburger), nor merely sinful lusts (Hottinger), nor δημώδης καὶ συρφε- 
τὸς ὄχλος, ὁ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης αὑτοῦ φθειρόμενος (Oecumenius; according 
to Laurentius and others, the homines mundani atque impii), are to he under- 
stood; but the idea κόσμος comprehends all these together ; it denotes the 
whole earthly creation, so far as it is cut off from fellowship with God and 
stands under the dominion of ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου (1 John γ. 19), thus especially 
the men who serve it in and with their sinful lusts; but, also, all earthly 
possessions by which sinful lust is excited, and to which it not only conforms 
itself, but converts them into the instruments of its activity. — Christians 
by means of their divine birth, effected by the word of truth (ver. 18), are 
indeed taken out of the κόσμος, they are no longer members of it; but on 
the other hand, both by the sin which is still in them (chap. 111. 2), and by 
their external intercourse, they stand in connection with the world, on which 
account they have to preserve themselves from its contaminating influence. 
This preservation, as it is a work of God (John xvii. 15), so it is likewise a 
work of man (1 Tim. v. 22), and therefore a task which believers must 
continually strive to perform. 


72 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


CHAPTER II. 


Ver. 2. The genuineness of the article τῆν before συναγωγήν (Rec., after A, 
G, K, 8, corr. Tisch.) is, since B, C, δὲ, pr. omit it (Lach.), at least doubtful. 
— Ver. 8. Instead of the Rec. καὶ ἐπιβλέψητε, after A, G, δὲ, several vss., 
Oecumenius, Bede (Lach.), Tisch. has, after B, C, K, etc., adopted ἐπιβλέψητε 
dé; which reading is the original, cannot be determined. The αὐτῷ of the Rec. 
(after G, K) is already rightly omitted by Griesb.; A, B, C, 8, etc., do not have it; 
it was inserted for the completion of the expression (against Reiche). In the 
second clause of the verse, the Rec., after C**, G, K, δὲ, reads στῆθι ἐκεῖ ἢ κάθου 
ods; in A, C*, ὧδε is wanting (Lach., Tisch.); B reads στῆθι ἢ κάθου ἐκεῖ. The 
latter reading is recommended by the sharper contrast of στῆθι to the preceding 
κάθου; but it is also possible that in this lies the reason of its origin; if ἐκεῖ 
belongs to στῆθι, ὦδε after κάθου could be easily inserted, partly from the pre- 
ceding κάθου ὧδε καλῶς, partly to introduce the antithesis to ἐκεῖ: but, on the 
other hand, the original ὧδε might also be omitted as superfluous (on account of 
the following ὑπὸ τὸ izoz.). Nothing can with certainty be decided. For the 
addition of μου before τῶν ποδῶν, adopted by Lach., only A and the Vulg. chiefly 
speak. Almost all other authorities are against it. — Ver. 4. According to the 
Rec., this verse commences with καὶ οὐ διεκρίθητε (thus G, K, etc., Tisch. 7); in 
A, B**, C, 8, many min. and vss., καί is wanting (Lach., Tisch. 2); οὐ is also 
wanting in the original text of B. The omission of kai may, indeed, be more 
easily explained than its insertion, on account of which Reiche and Bouman 
consider it as genuine; but the most important authorities are against it; the 
reading in B is to be considered as a correction (Buttmann). — Ver. 5. τοῦ 
κόσμου (τούτου) is a reading evidently explanatory (against Reiche, Bouman), 
instead of τῷ κόσμῳ, whose genuineness is, moreover, attested by A*, B, C*, 8; 
the same also with the reading ἐν τῷ kéouw.— Ver. 10. Instead of the reading 
τηρῆσει. , . πταΐσει, attested almost only by G, K, the conjunctives τηρήσῃ... 
πταίσῃ are to be read, with Lach. and Tisch. (against Reiche and Bouman). — 
Ver. 11. The Ree. εἰ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, φονεύσεις δέ, found only in K, several min., 
Theoph., Tisch., and Lach. read the present μοιχεύεις, φονεύεις: thus A, C, δὰ; 
according to Tisch., also B; but, according to Buttm., B has μοιχεύεις, φονεύσεις, 
Reiche and Bouman retain the Rec. as the original reading. — Ver. 13. The 
Rec. ἀνίλεως (after G, etc.) is, after A, B, K, 8, very many min., Oecumenius, 
to be changed with the certainly entirely unusual form ἀνέλεος (Lach., Buttm., 
Tisch.). In the mode of writing this word, there is, however, great variation, 
the forms ὠνήλεος, ἀνίλεος, aveideoc, ἀνῆλεως, ἀνήλιος occurring in different MSS. 
It is surprising that no MS. has the classical form ἀνηλεῆς or ἀνελεῆς. According | 
to the Rec., κατακαυχᾶται is connected with the preceding by «ai, which, however, 
is found only in min. A, some min, etc., have, instead of it, after xarax., the 
particle δέ (Lach., ed. min.), which, however, appears only to have been inserted 
to avoid the asyndeton. There are many variations of karaxavydra, A has 


CHAP. II. 1. 73 


κατακαυχάσθω, C** κατακαύχασθε, readings which owe their origin to the difficulty 
of the thought. — Instead of ἔλεος (after κατωκαυχᾶται), Rec., after A, B (ed. Mai), 
ν᾿, ete. (Lach., Tisch., Buttm.), C, G, Καὶ, and B (apud Bentley), and many min., 
have the form ἔλεον, a nominative form which occurs, indeed, in the classics, 
but not in the N. T.— Ver. 14. Instead of the Ree. ti τὸ ὄφελος, attested by 
A, C**, G, K, 8, almost all min., Theoph., Oecumenius, Lach. has adopted τί 
ὄφελος, after B, C. On the distinction, see exposition. Whether, after the Rec., 
we are to read, with Tisch., λέγῃ tic, or, with Lach., τὶς λέγῃ, cannot with 
certainty be decided; B, G, K, δὰ, attest the former, A, C, the latter reading; 
yet the latter appears to be a correction. — Ver. 15. After ἐάν, the particle dé is 
omitted in B, δὲ; since its later insertion is not easy to be explained, the Rec. 
is to be retained as the correct reading. After λειπόμενοι, Lach. (after A, G, 
ete.) reads ὦσιν, which, however, is a later addition. — Ver. 16. Also here Lach., 
after B, C**, has omitted the article τό before ogeAoc, — Ver. 17. Instead of the 
Ree. ἔργα ἔχῃ, ἔχῃ ἔργα is to be read, with Griesb., Lach., Tisch., etc., after 
almost all authorities. — Ver. 18. The Rec. ἐκ τῶν ἔργων is attested by too few 
authorities (G, K, some min.) to be considered as genuine; Griesb. has conse- 
quently correctly adopted χωρὶς τῶν épy., attested by A, B, C, 8, etc. Almost all 
recent critics and interpreters, also Bouman, retain χωρίς as the original reading; 
Reiche and Philippi certainly judge otherwise. With the reading é falls also 
the pronoun σοὺ after ἔργων, which Lach. and Tisch. have correctly omitted; it 
is wanting in A, B, δὲ, several min., vss., etc., whilst C, G, K, etc., have it. Also 
after τὴν πίστιν, Tisch. (after B, C, δὲ, etc.) has rightly omitted the pronoun jou 
(A, G, K, Lach.); it appears to be added in order to bring more prominently 
forward the contrast to the first τὴν πίστιν σου. ---- Ver. 19. The Ree. is ὁ Θεὸς εἰς 
ἐστι: soG. Inthe most important MSS., however, εἰς stands first; so in A, B, 
C, 8; in favor of this reading is also the line of thought; yet the difference is 
found that ἐστιν in A, δὲ, precedes (Lach.), and in B, C, follows, ὁ Θεός (Tisch.); 
which reading is the original cannot be decided, yet the former appears to be a 
correction. B omits ὁ before Oré¢.— Ver. 20. Instead of the Rec. νεκρά, after 
A, C**, G, K, δὰ, several min., vss., Theoph., Oecumenius, Lach. and Tisch. 
have adopted dpy7, after B, C*, etc., which is preferred by Wiesinger, Briickner, 
Lange; whereas Reiche and Bouman prefer the Ree. It is possible, that, in 
order to avoid the frequent repetition of νεκρὰ (see vv. 17, 26), the word apy7 = 
depyn, as corresponding to χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, was substituted; but it is also possible 
that the reference to that verse occasioned the displacement of dpy7; it is 
difficult to arrive at a sure decision. — Ver. 24. The particle τοίνυν after ὁρᾶτε 
is already correctly omitted by Griesbach, being wanting in A, B, Ὁ, κα, etc. — 
Ver. 25. Instead of ἀγγέλους, C, G, etc., have κατασκόπους, which, however, is 
evidently borrowed from Heb. xi. 31. 


Ver. 1. In close connection with the thought contained in chap. i. 27, 
that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James 
proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect 
to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring 
contrast to that love. — After the impressive address ddeAgo: μου, he first 
expresses the exhortation with reference to that conduct, that their faith 
should not be combined with a partial respect of persons. Schneckenburger 
regards the clause as interrogative, remarking: interrogationis formam sensus 
gravitas flagitat et contextus (so also Kern); incorrectly, for although the 


14 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


interrogation with μῇ may not always require a negative answer, yet it is 
only used when the interrogator, with every inclination to regard something 
as true, yet can scarcely believe that it is actually the case; comp. Winer, 
p. 453 f. (E. T., 510 f.); Schirlitz, p. 366. This is inadmissible here, as the 
fact mentioned in what follows, the προυσωποληψία of the readers, was un- 
doubtedly true. wy... ἔχετε is thus imperative, as i. 16, iii. 1.—The 
plural προσωποληψίαις is used because the author thinks on individual con- 
crete instances in which the general fault manifested itself;1 comp. Col. 
111. 22; 2 Pet. iii. 12. For the explanation of προσωποληψία (only here and 
in Rom. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 35), foreign to classical Greek, see 
Matt. xxii. 16; Luke xx. 21; Gal. 11. 6 (see Meyer in loc.); from the O. T., 
Lev. xix. 15; Deut. i. 17, and other places (the verb προσωποληπτέω, Jas. 
11. 9; the adjective, Acts x. 34). The phrase ἐν προσωποληψίαις ἔχειν τ, πίστιν 
is not, with Pott, to be explained according to such expressions as ἔχειν τινα 
ἐν ὀργῇ, ἐν αἰτίαις, ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει (Rom. i. 28), for James intends not to re- 
proach his readers that they have a partial faith, or that they convert faith 
into the object of partiality, but that they hold not themselves in their faith 
free from προσωποληψία. Also ἔχειν does not stand for κατέχειν, whether in the 
meaning prohibere or detinere (Grotius: detinere velut caplivam et inefficicacem) ; 
but ἔχειν ἐν expresses the relation of internal connection thus: Have not your 
faith, so that it is as it. were enclosed in προσωποληψίαις, 1.6., combined with it. 
Thus was it with the readers, who in their very religious assemblies made a 
distinction of persons according to their external relations. — De Wette’s 
opinion is incorrect, that πίστιν ἔχειν here is to be understood of “the man- 
agement of the concerns of faith.”— Faith is more exactly described as 
ἡ πίστις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοὺ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης]. Most expositors? take τοῦ 
κυρίου aS ἃ genitive of object, and make τῆς δόξης, as a second genitive 
(besides ἡμῶν), dependent on κυρίου; thus: “the faith in our Lord of glory, 
Jesus Christ.” Neither the appellation of Christ as the Lord of glory 
(comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8; Ps. xxix. 3: ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης), nor the dependence of 
two genitives (ἡμῶν and τῆς δόξης) on one substantive (κυρίου), see Winer, p. 172 
(E. T., 191), has any thing against it; yet this construction cannot be held 
to be correct, because the name Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which follows τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, 
so entirely completes the idea that a second genitive can no longer depend 
on κυρίου ; if James had intended such a combination, he would have written 
either τὴν πίστιν ‘Ino. Χριστοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δόξης, OY τ. π. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς 
δύξης, Ἴησ. Χριστοῦ. It is evidently an entire mistake to construct τῆς δόξης 
with προσωποληψίαις, Whether it be taken as = opinio (Calvin: dum opum vel 
bonorum opinio nostros oculos perstringit, veritas supprimitur) or = gloria (Hei- 
sen: quod honorem attinet). Some expositors make τῆς δόξης depend on 
Χριστοῦ; thus Laurentius, who explains it the Christus gloriae = gloriosus ; 


1 Hornejus: ‘ Multiplex illud malum in vita see Phil. ii. 10; Rom. ix. 21; and Winer, p. 


est.”’ 172 (E. T., 288); but, in that case, the inter- 
2 Particularly Schneckenburger, Kern, De vening word is never in apposition with the 
Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger. preceding idea, with which it is completely 


8 The genitive, indeed, not unfrequently is concluded. 
separated from the word which governs it; 


CHAP. II. 2, 8. 75 


so also Bouman; also Lange: “the Messiah exalted in His glory above 
Judaistic expectations.” Decisive against this construction are —(1) the 
close connection of ’Ijcod and Χριστοῦ, as, When those two names are so di- 
rectly united as here, Χριστοῦ is purely nomen proprium; (2) the N. T. mode 
of expression does not admit of a more exact statement of being after Χριστοῦ 
by a genitive dependent on it; also in this case the article τοῦ before Χριστοῦ 
would not be wanting. In this commentary hitherto (former editions), τῆς 
δόξης was explained as a genitive of the object dependent on τὴν πίστιν, and 
τοὺ κυρίου ju. ᾽1. Xp. as the genitive of the subject, in the sense: “faith in the 
glory springing from our Lord Jesus Christ, — founded on Him,” namely, 
τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμὰς, Rom. viii. 18. This construction, 
although graminatically possible, is unmistakably harsh. It seems simpler, 
with Bengel, to regard τῆς δόξης as in apposition with ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp.; still the idea 
δόξης is too indefinite. The passages cited by Bengel, Luke ii. 32, Eph. i. 17, 
1 Pet. iv. 14, Isa. xl. 5, are of another kind, and cannot be adduced in justifi- 
cation of that explanation. Perhaps it is most correct to unite τῆς δόξης as a 
genitive of quality, not with Χριστοῦ only, but with the whole expression τοῦ 
κυρ. qu. Ino. Xp., by which δόξα is indicated as the quality of our Lord Jesus 
Christ which belongs to Him, the exalted One. Similar expressions are 
ὁ οἰκονόμος (Luke xvi. 8), ὁ κριτῆς (Luke xviii. 6), τῆς ἀδικίας. At all events, 
τῆς δόξης is added in order to mark the contrast between the προσωποληψία 
paid to passing riches and the faith in Jesus Christ. 

Vv. 2, 3. In these verses the conduct of the readers, which occasioned 
the exhortation of James (ver. 1), is described; hence the confirming γάρ. 
Both verses together form the protasis, on which ver. 4 follows as the apo- 
dosis ; whilst they in form appear by their connection with dé (according to 
the Rec. by καί) as co-ordinate sentences, in thought ver. 2 is subordinate 
to ver. 3; ver. 2 assigning the circumstances under which the conduct de- 
scribed in ver. 3 occurred. — Hammond, Homberg, Baumgarten, Michaelis, 
and Herder assign even ver. 4 to the protasis; but incorrectly, as in that 
case the conjunctive would be required in that verse as in vv. 2,3. As 
regards the matter itself, the fault is not directed against the rulers of the 
congregation, —the presbyters and deacons (Grotius, Pott, Schulthess, Hot- 
tinger), — but, as the address ἀδελφοί μου (ver. 1) shows, it is entirely general. 
It was not the custom in the time of James for the deacons to point out 
places to those who entered their assemblies (Constit. Apost., li. 56, 58). — 
The instance (ἐάν) which James states is, as regards the matter, not a hypo- 
thetical assumption, but a fact; and certainly not to be regarded as a soli- 
tary instance which only once took place, but as something which often 
occurred, that even in their religious assemblies the rich were treated with 
distinction, and the poor with disdain. It is not surprising that James in 
the description employed the aorist, since he generally uses that tense to 
represent that which is habitually repeated as a single fact which has taken 
place; see chap. i. 11, 24. — The words εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν show that it 
is an entrance into the religious assemblies of the congregation that is here 
spoken of. It cannot be inferred from the usual signification of the word 
συναγωγῆ, that a Jewish synagogue is here meant (Semler, Schueckenburger, 


76 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, 


Bouman); opposed to this is ὑμῶν; besides, the Christians would certainly 
not have the right to show seats to those who entered into such a place of 
worship; but, on the other hand, by συναγωγῇ here is not to be understood 
the religious assembly (De Wette). The whole description, both εἰσέλθῃ and 
the pointing out of seats, shows that συναγωγῇ denotes the place where the 
Christian congregation assembled for worship.1_ That James calls this by 
the word which was appropriate for Jewish places of worship, cannot be 
regarded in his mouth as any thing surprising. Hammond, Baumgarten, 
Storr, Herder, and others most arbitrarily understand by συναγωγῇ the judi- 
cial assemblies of the congregation and their elders. According to Lange, 
the name of the Jewish place of worship is here a symbol “of the religious 
fellowship of the entire Jewish Christian dispersion;” this opinion is not 
less unjustifiable than the view connected with it, that “a literal under- 
standing of what follows cannot be thought of.”— The rich man is here 
described as ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ, and the poor man as πτωχὸς ἐν 
ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι, the difference between them being represented to the eye in 
their clothing. — χρυσοδακτύλιος], a purely az. Aey. = χρυσόχειρ (Lucian, In Tim. : 
πόρφυροι καὶ χρυσύχειρες περιέρχονται; In Nigrin.: τῶν δακτυλίων πλῆθος ἔχων). On 
λαμπρός, used of clothes, see, on the one hand, Luke xxiii. 11 (comp. with 
Matt. xxvii. 28), and, on the other hand, Rev. xv. 6. Raphelius: Nullum 
certum colorem declarat, sed splendidum, clarum, nitidum seu rubrum seu album 
sit, seu alius generis. The counterpart of the ἐσθὴς λαμπρά is the ἐσθ. ῥυπαρά of 
the poor man. — ῥυπαρός] in its proper meaning only here in N. T.; in Zech. 
iii. 3, 4, it is also used of garments. Are Christians or non-Christians meant 
by these incomers? Most expositors consider them to be Christians only, 
whether they belonged to the congregation or came there as ξένοι (guests). 
But the following reasons decide against this view: 1. They are distin-, 
guished by James from the brethren addressed, and are not indicated as 
brethren, which yet, particularly in reference to the poor (ver. 5), would 
readily have suggested itself as a strong confirmation of their fault. 2. In. 
vv. 6, 7, the rich are evidently opposed to Christians (ὑμῶν, ὑμᾶς, ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς), and ἡ 
reprimanded for their conduct towards Christians (not merely toward the 
poor), which, if rich Christians had been guilty of it, would certainly have. 
been indicated as an offence against their Christian calling. That those 
who were not Christians might and did come into the Christian religious 
assemblies, is a well-known fact; see 1 Cor. xiv. 22,23. The view of Weiss,? 
that the rich man was not a Christian, but that the poor man was a Chris- 
tian, is supported by no feature in the description; in ‘hat case James would 
certainly have indicated the dissimilarity of relation; then “ must ver. 5 ff. 
bring it forward as the gravest offence, that the brother chosen by God is 
slighted for the sake of the rich who were not Christians ” (Wiesinger).® 


1 The word συναγωγή occurs in the N. T. in 
both meanings; usually it designates the reli- 
gious place of meeting of the Jews; but that 
it also denotes the assembly, Acts xiii. 43 
shows; see also Rev. ii. 9. In the Apocrypha 
of the O. T., it has only the last meaning, and, 


indeed, in a general sense; see Wahl, Clav. . 
Apocryph., συναγωγή- 

2 Deutsch. Zeitschrift 7. christl. Wissensch., 
etc., 1854, No. 81. 

8 Lange considers the mode of expression 
symbolical: by the rich man is meant the 


Ἂ CHAP. II. 3, 4. 717 


Ver. 3 describes the conduct of the church toward the two incomers. 
Many ancient expositors understand this as a figurative representation of 
the preference which was generally given in the congregation to the rich; 
this is arbitrary. The whole description points rather to something which 
James has actually in view; but in reprimanding this, he condemns par- 
tiality generally, which certainly showed itself in many other ways. By 
the descriptive words ém3iépnre . . . τὴν λαμπράν, which precede εἴπητε (in 
reference to the poor there is only εἴπητε), is indicated in a lively manner 
the admiring look at the external glitter; ἐπιβλέπειν, emphatice sumendum est 
(Pott); the rich man is characteristically described as ὁ φορῶν τὴν ἐσθ. τ. λαμπράν; 
the splendid garment is that which attracts the eye, the character of the 
man is entirely overlooked ; φορεῖν, a secondary form of φέρειν, is also in Matt. 
xi. 8 used of garments; by the article before λαμπράν this idea is strength- 
ened as the chief idea. — The contrast is sharply expressed in the different 
address to the one and to the other; already they are distinguished from 
one another by σὺ... σύ, and then κάθου and στῆθι, ὧδε and ἐκεῖ, καλῶς and 
ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιόν μου, are opposed. The form κάθου (instead of κάθησο) is foreign 
to classical Greek; see Winer, p. 75 (E. T., 81). --- καλῶς refers to comfort 
(Wiesinger); it is not = honorifice (Wahl); and still less is it to be resolved 
into “Be so good as” (Storr). <A place is pointed out to the rich man, 
where he can be comfortably seated; whilst to the poor man it is said, Stand 
there. The second clause, separated from the first by 7, is not a special 
address, but the two clauses form one saying, whilst after 7 a thought is to 
be supplied, as “If thou wilt rather sit;” by the addition of these words the 
depreciation of the poor is yet more strongly marked. —izd τὸ ὑποπόδιον] 
means not under, but below, my footstool (Wiesinger), by which the floor is 
pointed out as the fitting place for the poor to sit (Bouman). “The expres- 
sion involves contempt: as it were, under one’s feet. Not on the footstool” 
(Lange). The word ὑποπόδιον (not unicum, as Wiesinger asserts) belongs 
only to the later classics. Often in N. T., and also in LXX. 

Ver. 4 forms the apodosis to vv. 2 and 3, and rebukes what is blamable 
in the conduct described. Expositors greatly differ in the explanation of 
this verse, according as they explain the verb διεκρίθητε, and understand οὐ as 
a pure negation, or as an interrogative particle. It is best to take διεκρίθητε, 
in form indeed passive, in meaning as the aorist middle, as in Matt. xxi. 21, 
Mark xi. 23, Rom. iv. 20, and to give to the verb here the same meaning 
which it has constantly in the usage of the N. T.; so that it denotes the 
doubt, which consists in the assertion of thoughts at variance with faith; see 
on chap. i.6. But then the sentence must be taken as interrogative: Did you 
not then doubt among yourselves? i.e., Have ye not fallen into a contradiction 
with your faith (ver. 1), according to which external glory and riches are 
nothing, whilst ye by your conduct have attached a value to them? To this 
question the second is added, to which the preceding οὐ is also to be referred : 


Jewish Christian, who, as wearing a gold ring, ing to Hengstenberg, the meaning is precisely 
boasts of his covenant rights; and by the poor the reverse. Both opinions are unjustified. 
man is meant the Gentile Christian. Accord- 


78 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


and became ye not (thus) judges of evil thoughts? This second question indicates 
the direct consequence of διακρίνεσθαι. James calls them κριταῖ, because in 
their conduct they expressed their judgment on the rich and poor. The 
genitive διαλογισμῶν 'πονηρῶν is not the genitive of object,! but of quality. 
διαλογισμοί is here, as predominantly in the N. T., in malam partem (see espe- 
cially Luke v. 21, 22), thoughts of doubt and unbelief; the bad meaning is 
here heightened by πονηρῶν. 
Other explanations are as follow: — 


(1) διακρίνεσθαι = separare ; then the sentence is interrogative; ἐν ἑαυτοῖς = ἐν 
ἀλλήλοις (Gebser, Schulthess, Semler, Erasmus Schmid, etc.); the verb being 
either passive: ‘‘ Nonne inter vos ipsos estis discreti ac separati?’’ or middle: 
‘‘Nonne vos discernitis inter vos ipsos?’”’ ‘‘Do you not separate, divide your- 
selves among yourselves ?”’ (Lange). 

(2) διακρίνεσθαι = discrimen facere. (a) The verb active — (a) Interrogative: 
‘‘Nonne discrimen fecistis apud vos ipsos ?”’ (Laurentius, Grotius, Wolf, Hot- 
tinger, Knapp). In this explanation, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς = ἐν ἀλλήλοις: Schneckenburger, 
however, explains ἐν ἑαυτοὶς = in animis vestris; but then the meaning discri- 
men facere would pass into an act of the judgment ‘‘ statuere.”? (8) Negative: 
“Then partly ye would not have distinguished (according to a sound judgment) 
among yourselves, and partly also ye would have judged after an evil manner of 
thinking (thus an error of the understanding and of the heart’’ (Grashof). — 
(b) The verb passive: ‘*‘Dupliciter peccatis, primo: inter vos ipsos non estis 
discriminati ἢ. e. cessat piorum et impiorum differentia’’ (Oeder). 

(8) διακρίνεσθαι = judicare. (a) The verb active — (a) Interrogative: ‘‘ Nonne 
judicastis, deliberastis ‘ipsi?’’ ‘*‘ Are ye not yourselves persuaded how wrong 
this is ?’’ (Augusti). (8) Negative: ‘‘ Non discrevistis justa dubitatione, con- 
siderantia et aestimatione, quid tribuendum esset pauperi potius vel certe non 
minus, quam diviti’’ (Bengel). Luther combines this rendering with that under 
2: “And ye do not well consider, but ye become judges, and make an eyil 
distinction.’? Here also comes in the explanation of Oecumenius: τὸ διακριτικὸν 
ὑμῶν διεφθείρατε, μηδεμίαν συζήτησιν ποιήσαντες πότερον τιμητέον. . . GAN’ οὕτως, 
ἀδιακρίτως, καὶ ἐν προσωποληψίᾳ τὸν μὲν ἐτιμήσατε. . τὸν δὲ ἠτιμάσατε. ---- (Ὁ) The 
verb passive —(a) interrogative: ‘‘ Nonne vos in conscientiis dijudicati h. 6. 
convicti estis?’’ Paraeus; so also Bouman: ‘‘ Nonne igitur in vestris ipsorum 
jam judicati estis animis?’’ (β) Negative: “ἘΠῚ dijudicati inter vos ipsos non 
estis ut judicastis secundum prava ratiocinia vestra’’ (Heisen). Differently 
Cajetanus: ‘‘ Haec faciendo non estis judicati in vestibus et divitiis et pauper- 
tate;’’ laying the chief stress on ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, 

(4) διακρίνεσθαι = dubitare, to entertain doubts. (a) Interrogative: ‘Et 
non dubitastis apud vosmet ipsos ? et facti estis iniqui judices ?’’? ‘Should you 
not yourselves have entertained doubts? Should you actually have passed evil- 
minded judgments ?’’ (Theile). (Ὁ) Negative: ‘‘ Non dubitastis apud animum, 
ne subiit quidem haec cogitatio, id factum forte malum esse, certo apud vos 
statuistis id jure ac bene fieri.”’ 


All these explanations are untenable, because they proceed upon a mean- 
ing of διακρίνεσθαι foreign to the usage of the N. T. Besides, several require 


1 Elsner: ‘‘ Iniquas istas cogitationes appro- larum cogitationum i. e. divitum, foris splen- 
bastis; Bengel: ‘‘ Judices approbatores, ma- dentium, sed malis cogitationibus sentientium.” 


CHAP. IL. 5. 79 


arbitrary completions, and many do not correspond to the context. Briick- 
ner, De Wette, and Wiesinger have also here correctly maintained the 
meaning to doubt. De Wette: “Have you not then become doubtful in 
your faith?” Wiesinger: “Have you not forsaken the law of faith, which 
recognizes only one true riches?” With the reading of B (omitting οὐ) the 
thought is the same; the interrogative (οὐ), however, serves for the height- 
ening of the thought, the readers themselves being thereby charged to pro- 
nounce the judgment. The καί of the Receptus stands as in Mark x. 26, 
Luke x. 29, 1 Cor. v. 2, with the question suddenly introduced. Or, since 
in the N. T. no other passage is found where καί is placed before a question 
forming the apodosis of a protasis beginning with ἐάν (on 2 Cor. ii. 2, see 
Meyer), it is to be explained from the fact that one would make ver. 4 a part 
of the protasis; see above. 

Ver. 5. With this verse the proof of the reprehensibleness of the conduct 
found fault with commences: James showing that the conduct toward the 
poor is in contradiction with the mercy of God directed to the poor, and that 
the conduct toward the rich is in contradiction with their conduct toward 
Christians. The impressive exhortation to attention precedes ἀκούσατε with 
the address ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοῖ ; see chap. i. 16,19. The proof itself (as in 
ver. 4) is expressed in a lively manner in the form of a question: Has not 
God chosen those who are the poor of the world (i.e., accounted as such) to be 
rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He has promised to them that love 
Him ?— The verb ἐξελέξατο is to be retained in its usual acceptation, in that 
which it has in 1 Cor. i. 37. Wiesinger, without sufficient reason, will 
understand it here as equivalent to “God has so highly honored the poor ;” 
and Lange incorrectly maintains that “the word here rather signifies calling 
with reference to ethical good behavior to the divine revelation.” — The cor- 
rect reading: τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ, is to be explained in the same manner as 
the expressions ἀστεῖος τῷ Θεῷ, Acts Vil. 20, and δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ, 2 Cor. x. 4 (see 
Meyer on these passages, and Winer, p. 190 (KE. T., 201); Al. Buttmann, 
p- 156 [E. T., 1797). The world esteems those as poor who possess no 
visible earthly riches. Wiesinger prefers to explain the dative as the dative 
of reference, thus “poor in respect of the world;” yet the former explana- 
tion, which also Briickner and Lange adopt, in which ὁ Θεός and τῷ κόσμῳ 
form a sharp contrast, is more appropriate, and more in correspondence 
with the meaning of the word κόσμος with James. In the Receptus, πτωχοὺς 
τοῦ κόσμου, the genitive is to be understood as in the expression τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ 
κόσμου, ete., 1 Cor. i. 27; see Meyer in loco. — πλουσίους ἐν πίστει] is not in 
apposition with τοὺς πτωχοὺς (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Hottinger, Geb- 
ser, Bouman, Lange, and others),! but the completion of ἐξελέξατο, stating to 
what God has chosen the poor (Beza, Wolf, Morus, Knapp, Storr, Schnecken- 
burger, Kern, Theile, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others) ; see 2 Cor. iii. 6. — 
By ἐν πίστει, as in the expression πλούσιος ἐν ἐλέει, Eph. ii. 4 (see 1 Cor. 1. 5; 


1 If πλουσίους is taken as in apposition, then contained in the oxymorum is entirely blunted; 
here riches in faith forms the reason of the it is also arbitrary to separate the two ideas 
choice; but by this the keenness of the thought πλουσίους and κληρονόμους united by καί, 


80 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


2 Cor. ix. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 18), the object is not stated wherein they are rich 
(Luther: “who are rich in the faith’’), but the sphere within which riches 
is imparted to them; similarly Wiesinger explains it: “rich in their position 
as believers.” James wished primarily to mark the contrast that the poor 
are appointed to be rich, namely, so far as they are believers; the context 
gives the more exact statement of their riches: riches in the possessions of 
the heavenly kingdom is meant; this the following clause indicates. — Cal- 
vin: non qui fidei magnitudine abundant, sed quos Deus variis Spiritus sui donis 
locupletavit, quae fide percipimus.1— The expression ἡ βασιλεία occurs also else- 
where, without the addition of rod Θεοῦ or similar terms, as a designation of 
the kingdom of God; e.g., Matt. xiii. 838. No stress rests on the article τῆς 
(= ἐκείνης), as the relative ἧς referred to it. The relative clause serves not 
for a more definite statement of the idea βασιλεία, as if by it this βασιλεία was 
to be distinguished from another, but the statement éfcA. . . . κληρονόμους τ. 
βασιλείας is confirmed, as a kingdom founded on the promise of God. — From 
the expressions κληρονόμος and ἐπηγγείλατο of the relative clause, it is evident 
that James considered here βασιλεία as the future perfected kingdom of God, 
not “the joint participation in the υἱοθεσία of the Jews” (Lange). On je 
ἐπηγγείλατο, x.7.A., see the remark on i. 12. The addition of this clause shows 
that with James faith and love to God are most closely connected. — James 
puts τοὺς πτώχους, to Whom οἱ πλούσιοι are opposed, as the object of ἐξελέξατο. 
He accordingly (the article is not to be overlooked) divides men into these 
two classes, the poor and the rich, and designates, not the latter, but the 
former, as those whom God has chosen and appointed to be rich in faith,? 
namely, to be heirs of the kingdom; not as if all the poor received the 
κληρονομία, but his meaning is that those whom God has chosen belong to 
this class, whereas those belonging to the class of the rich had not been 
chosen. James did not require to point out the truth of this statement: 
the Christians to whom he wrote were a living testimony of it, for they all 
belonged to that class; and although some among them were πλούσιοι, yet, 
on the one hand, what Christ says in Matt. xix. 23-26 holds good, and, on 
the other hand, 1 Cor. i. 26-28 is to be compared. — With this divine choice 
the conduct of his readers stood in direct contradiction when they treated a 
poor man—thus one who belonged to the class of those chosen by God — 
contemptuously, and that on account of his poverty. What directly follows 
expresses this contradiction. 

Ver. 6. ὑμεῖς dé], contrast to Θεός. ---- ἠτιμάσατε], contrast to ἐξελέξατο. The 
aorist is used with reference to the case stated in vv. 2, 3, which is certainly 
of a general character (Wiesinger).?—rdv πτωχόν, not = pauperem ILLUM, 


1 Kern: ἐν πίστει indicates that it is faith of the divine choice. The same view lies at 


itself which makes the Christian inwardly 
rich. 

2 It is to be observed that ἐξελέξατο does 
not here refer only to πλουσίους, as if πίστις 
were to be considered as the condition on which 
the πτωχοί were chosen to be rich, but to the 
combined expression πλουσίους ἐν πίστει, 80 
that also πίστις. 1Β to be considered as an effect 


the foundation of what Paul in 1 Cor. i. 80 (see 
Meyer in 1060) and elsewhere often expresses. 

8 According to Lange, the aorist is used to 
point to “the historical fact in which Judaiz- 
ing Jewish Christians have already taken part 
with the Jews, namely, the dishonoring of the 
Gentile Christians.” 


CHAP. II. 7. 81 


but, to be understood generally, the poor man as such. That we are here 
specially to think on the Christian poor, is an incorrect supposition. — With 
οὐχ οἱ πλούσιοι James turns to the rich as the class opposed to the poor, in 
order to point out from another side than he had already done the reprehen- 
sibleness of the conduct denounced. Already from this opposition it is inti- 
mated that not the Christian rich, but the rich generally, — not exactly only 
“the rich Gentiles or the Romans” (Hengstenberg),— are meant. This is 
also evident from what is said of them, and by which their conduct is desig- 
nated as hostile to Christians (ὑμῶν) who belong to the poor. xataduvacrevew] 
only here and in Acts x. 35, frequently in the LXX. and Apocrypha (see 
particularly Wisd. of Sol. ii. 20), means “to use power against any to his 
hurt.” Related ideas are κατακυριεύειν and κατεξουσιάζειν, Matt. xx. 25. This 
exercise of power against the Christians might take place in various ways; 
what follows: καὶ αὐτοὶ ἕλκουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς κριτήρια, Mentions one chief mode. — 
καὶ avtoi | emphatically put first — even they (Theile). — ἕλκειν] indicates the 
violence of the conduct (so in the classics). The courts of judgment (κριτήρια, 
as in 1 Cor. vi. 2, 4) may be both Gentile and Jewish; certainly not Chris- 
tian. It is arbitrary, and not corresponding to the expression ἕλκειν, to think 
here on a process quibus pauperes PROPTER DEBITA in judiciis verabant (Hor- 
nejus; also De Wette and others). — Since James so strongly contrasts αὐτοί 
and ὑμᾶς, the former cannot possibly be regarded as a part of the latter. 
Ver. 7. The description of the conduct of the rich is still continued; 
they not only do violence to Christians, but they even revile the holy name 
of Christ. Do they not (even) blaspheme that fair name which has been called 
upon you? The pronoun αὐτοί is put here as in ver. 6: incorrectly, Theile = 
τ ht potissimum. — The expression τὸ ὄνομα ἐπικαλεῖται ἐπι τινα] is borrowed from 
the O. T., where it often occurs, and in the sense that one becomes the 
property of him whose name is called upon him; particularly it is said of 
Israel that the name of God was called upon them.” Accordingly, by the 
name which is called upon Christians is not meant the Christian name 
(Hensler: nomen fratrum et sororum), also not the name πτωχοί, but the 
name of Him only to whom they as Christians belong —the name of Christ 
(De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange, and others); from which, however, 
it does not follow (as Wiesinger correctly observes) that James here alludes 
to the name Χριστιανοί. ---- By the addition of the attribute καλόν the shame- 
fulness of βλασφημεῖν is still more strongly marked.—In support of the 
hypothesis that the rich are Christians, many expositors (also Briickner and 
Wiesinger) here arbitrarily explain βλασφημεῖν of indirect blasphemy, i.e., of 
such as takes place not by words, but by works; but βλασφημεῖν is never thus 
used in the Holy Scriptures; not one of the passages which Wiesinger cites 
proves that for which he adduces them; βλασφημεῖν always denotes blasphemy 
by word. — This word also proves that the rich who are not Christians are 


1 If James had the Christian rich in view, the dative is put); 2 Chron. vii. 14; Jer, xiv. 9, 
he certainly would not have omitted to point xv. 16; Amos ix. 12; see also Gen. xlviii. 16; 
to the contrast between their conduct to the Isa. iv. 1. 
poor and their Christian calling. 8 Were it here asserted that the blasphem- 

2 See Deut. xxviii. 10 (where instead of ἐπί ing of the name of God or of Christ was 


82 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


here meant (thus also Lange, who, however, will understand particularly 
the Judaists) ; which is also evident, because James otherwise would rather 
have written τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ αὐτούς instead of τὸ ἐπικλ. ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς. --- By the thought 
in this verse James indicates that Christians, by showing partiality to the 
rich, not only acted foolishly, but were guilty of a violation of the respect 
due to the name of Christ. 

Vv. 8, 9. With these verses James meets the attempt which his readers 
might perhaps make to justify their conduct toward the rich with the law of 
love; whilst he, granting to them that the fulfilment of that law is some- 
thing excellent, designates προσωποληπτεῖν directly as a transgression of the 
law. This explanation, which among ancient expositors, particularly Cal- 
vin, Cornelius a Lapide, Laurentius, Hornejus, and among the moderns Hot- 
tinger, Theile, Wiesinger, have recognized as the correct one, is justified both 
by the particle μέντοι and by the phrase καλῶς ποιεῖτε. ---- μέντοι has in the N. T., 
where besides the Gospel of John it only elsewhere occurs in 2 Tim. ii. 19 
and Jude 8, always the meaning yet, nevertheless; but this meaning is not 
here suitable, as ver. 8 contains no contrast to what goes before.! It is 
therefore to be retained in its original classical meaning, assuredly, certainly, 
and points out that James grants something to his readers, having, however, 
in view the contrast which he expresses in the following εἰ δὲ, κιτ.λ.2 This 
is also indicated by the expression καλῶς ποιεῖτε (see ver. 19), which is evi- 
dently too feeble for an earnest enforcement of the law of love. Wiesinger 
correctly observes that the hypothetical dilemma carries in itself unmistak- 
ably an ironical character. James calls the law ἀγαπήσεις, «.7.4., which is 
cited from Lev. xix. 18, νόμον βασιλικόν, because it is the most excellent of all 
laws, celerarum legum quasi regina (Knapp; so also Theile, Wiesinger, De 
Wette, Bouman, and others), inasmuch as all other laws are contained in 
it; see Rom. xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14 (1 Tim. i. 5; Matt. xxii. 39). It is far- 
fetched to explain the attribute βασιλικόν, because it was given by God the 
great King (Raphelius, Wetstein, Wolf, Baumgarten), or by Christ (Grotius), 
or because it applies to kings (Michaelis), or quia reges facit (Thomas ; 
Lange combines all these explanations); also Calvin’s remark is to be re- 
jected as too artificial: regia lex dicitur, ut VIA REGIA, plana scilicet, recta et 
aequabilis, qui sinuosis diverticulis vel ambagibus tacite opponitur. — νόμος is here 
(see also ver. 9), as in Jer. xxxi. 33 (Heb. viii. 10, x. 16), used of a single 
commandment, instead of ἐντολῇ (which Lange wrongly denies). The expres- 


-occasioned by the wicked works of Jews or 
Christians, this would be indicated not by the 
active verb, but by the passive with διά; see 
Rom. ii. 24; Tit. ii.5; 2 Pet. ii.2; Isa. lii. 5. 
Moreover, even then blasphemy (namely, of 
the Gentiles) could only be expressed by words. 

1 Brickner finds the contrast in love being 
ithe reverse of partiality; but μέντοι does not 
simply express the opposite, but the adversa- 
tive meaning of the particle in the N. T. is 
of this nature, that it only occurs when the 
sharp contrast to an ‘‘ although”? is to be filled 


up or expressed ; it is arbitrary to explain it as 
equivalent to ‘‘ on the contrary.” 

2 Some interpreters explain μέντοι here, 
contrary to linguistic usage, as equivalent to 
igitur. 

8 When De Wette, against this explanation, 
says: “ον could those blamed appeal to 
this law for their partiality?’ it is to be ob- 
served that they seek thereby to justify only 
their conduct to the rich, by which certain. 
ly they leave their conduct to the poor un- 
justified. 


CHAP. II. 10. 83 


sion τελεῖν νόμον is found only here and in Rom. ii. 27; it is a stronger ex- 
pression than τηρεῖν νόμον (ver. 10).— xara τὴν γραφῆν] is not to be combined 
with βασιλικόν, nor is the mode of τελεῖν thereby stated, but it is the simple 
formula of citation. 

Ver. 9 is in sharp contrast to ver. 8, calling the conduct of his readers, in 
opposition to their pretext, by its true name, and designating it directly 
as sin. The verb προσωποληπτεὶν is a complete ἀπ. Aey.; James uses this word 
with reference to the exhortation in ver. 1. On ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθαι, see Matt. 
vii.23; Acts x. 35; Heb.xi.33. Theile: gravius fere est quam ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖν, 
ἁμαρτάνειν. For the sake of heightening this judgment, James adds the par- 
ticipial sentence ἐλεγχόμενοι, x.7.2.: being convicted by the law as transgressors. 
If the προσωποληπτοῦντες appealed to a law, it is precisely the law by which 
they are convinced as transgressors, so that they are without excuse. By 
ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου is meant not a single commandment, neither the above-men- 
tioned law of love, nor specially a commandment forbidding respect of per- 
sons, as Deut. xvi. 19 (Lange), but the law generally; so also παραβάται is 
general: not as transgressors of one commandment, but of the law generally. 

Ver. 10. Confirmation of the last expressed thought: For whosoever kept 
the whole law, and yet sinned in one (commandment), he is guilty of all (com- 
mandments). The conjunctives τηρήσῃ, πταίσῃ, certified by authorities, are 
not to be considered as an error of the scribe (as Winer, 5th ed., p. 356, was 
inclined to assume); but the particle ἄν is here, as frequently as in the N.T., 
contrary to classical usage in hypothetical sentences, omitted when ὅστις 
stands, because “the universality was already sufficiently indicated by the 
pronoun ” (Buttmann, p. 197 [E. T., 229]).1 ἀνθρώπῳ is not, with Schulthess, 
to be supplied to ἐν ἑνί, but νόμῳ, with Theile, De Wette, Wiesinger, Lange, 
and others, “from the preceding collective idea νόμος. The following πάντων 
forbids us, with Schneckenburger and Kern, to understand éi as neuter. It 
is in entire conformity with the character of the thought as a general sen- 
tence to take évi quite generally, and not, with Theophylact, Oecumenius 
(τοῦτο περὶ ἀγάπης εἴρηκε), Schol. Matthaei, p. 188 (ἐν évi πταΐσειν ἐστὶ, τὸ μὴ τελείαν 
ἔχειν ἀγάπην), and some recent critics (Semler: in HANC unam et primam), to 
refer it to a definite commandment, particularly to that of love.* By this 
general sentence James seeks to confirm the thought that respect of persons 
includes in itself the transgression of the whole law, although it appears to 
be directed only against a single commandment. — The word πταίειν is found 
in the N. T. only in a figurative sense; the construction with ἐν is only in 
this place; in chap. iii. 2 the reference of ἐν is different. By γέγονεν πάντων 
(sc. νόμων) ἔνοχος, James declares the transgressor of one commandment to 
be guilty of the transgression of all. —évoyor] is here, as in 1 Cor. xi. 27, 
used with the genitive of the thing against which one sins, in the guilt of 


1 Winer, p. 275 (E. T., 308), explains the 
omission of av, beeause in the writer’s concep- 
tion the case is altogether definite; but then 
the future indicative would be put; also the 
case here stated, namely, that one may trans- 
gress one commandment and yet keep the 


whole law, is a case which cannot be imagined. 

2 Still more arbitrarily, Grotius, Morus, 
Stolz, and Jaspar limit the general expres- 
sions ἑνί and πάντων to such commandment, 
to the transgression of which the punishment 
of death is assigned. 


84 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 
which one is thus involved.1 The same thought is also found in the rab- 
binical writings.? 

Ver. 11. The truth of the above thought is founded on the fact that all 
commandments proceed from one lawgiver. —6 γὰρ εἰπών" μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, εἶπεν 
καί " μὴ φονεύσῃς]. Baumgarten finds the reason why James adduces these two 
commandments, μὴ μοιχεύσῃς and μὴ φονεύσῃς, in this, because “the transgres- 
sion of these two was punished with death; ” Wiesinger, on the other hand, 
because “μοιχεύειν was never laid to the charge of the readers, whereas μὴ 
φονεύσῃς had the command of love as its essence;” and Lange, because “to 
the Israelite the prohibition of adultery was likewise the prohibition of apos- 
tasy to heathenism, and the prohibition of murder was likewise that of 
uncharitableness towards our neighbor.” But the reason is rather because 
these two commandments are the first of those which refer to our duties to 
our neighbor (thus Briickner). That μὴ μοιχεύσῃς precedes the other, has its 
reason in ancient tradition; see on both points Mark x. 19; Luke xviii. 20; 
Rom. xiii. 9 (see Meyer in loc.); Philo, De Decal., xii. 24, 82. With the 
words that follow: εἰ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύεις, x.7.2., James draws the inference from 
the preceding. The negative οὐ after ei with the indicative is not surprising 
in the N. T. usage, the less so as here only a part of the conditional sentence 
is denied; see Winer, p. 423 ff. (E. T., 479); Al. Buttmann, p. 296 ff. (E. T., 
346 f.).2 With the apodosis γέγονας παραβάτης νόμου, James refers to ver. 9; 
consequently not ἔνοχος, aS in ver. 10, but παραβάτης is put. — The reason of 
the judgment here expressed is contained in 6 εἰπών... Since the 
law is the expression of the will of Him who gave it, the transgression of a 
single portion is disobedience to the one will, and consequently a transgres- 
sion of the whole law. James might, indeed, have confirmed the idea by 
the internal connection of all commands, and by pointing out that the trans- 
gression of one commandment reveals a want which makes the fulfilment of 
the other commandments impossible;® but as he does not do so, these con- 
siderations are not to be arbitrarily introduced into his words. 


. εἶπε Kal. 


1 The punishment with ἔνοχος is usually in 
the genitive, with Matt. xxvi. 66, Mark iii. 29, 
xiv. 46; yet also in the dative, Matt. v.21. In 
classical language, the thing against which one 
sins 18, with ἔνοχος only in the dative, whilst 
the crime itself of which the man is guilty, as 
well as the punishment which he has to suffer, 
is added in the genitive. 

2 ¢.g., Cod. Talm. Schabbath, fol. lxx. 2; 
R. Johanan: Quodsi faciat omnia, unum vero 
omittat, omnium est singulorum reus; see 
Wolf. K6ster (Stud. u. Krit., 1862, 1) to this 
passage cites the corresponding expression of 
Livy (Mist., xxxiv. 3) referring to the law- 
giver: unam tollendo legem ceterae infirman- 
tur. 

3 According to Buttmann, the negative οὐ 
here, even according to classic usage, is the 
more necessary, ‘‘ when to the negative predi- 
cate another, still in the protasis, is immedi- 


ately so appended with an adversative particle 
that the entire emphasis falls upon this second 
part’’ (E. T., 346). It is indeed said in Thuc. 
1.82: εἰ μὴ μετὰ κακίας, δόξης δὲ μᾶλλον ἁμαρτίᾳ 

. ἐναντία τολμῶμεν; but here the relation 
is different, as the contrast δόξης, «.7.A., could 
be left out without injury to the thought, which 
is evidently not the case with James. 

4 Bengel: unus est, qui totam legem tulit; 
cujus voluntatem qui una in re violant, totam 
violant. 

5 Augustine, in his Epistle to Jerome on 
this passage (Opera Hieronym., Francf., iv. 
p. 154 ff.), says: Unde fiet omnium reus, si in 
uno offendat, qui totam legem servaverit? An 
forte quia plenitudo legis charitas est, qua Deus 
proximusgue diligitur, in quibus praeceptis cha- 
fitatis tota lex pendet et prophetae, merito fit 
reus omnium, qui contra illam fecit, in qua 
pendent omnia? Nemo autem peccat, nisi 


CHAP. II. 12, 13. 85 


Ver. 12. To what has hitherto been said, she general exhortation is an- 
nexed: So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 
A new section does not here begin, as Wetstein, Semler, and others assume ; 
but with this and the following verse the course of thought commenced at 
ver. 1 is concluded; not until ver. 14 does the thought take a new turn. 
The connection with what has gone before is to be thus explained, that 
ver. 13 evidently points to the respect of persons with regard to the poor, 
and refers to chap. i. 27. --- οὕτως] “is not to be referred to what precedes, 
but to the following ὡς, thus: so as is necessary for those who,” etc. ; thus 
in former editions. But by this explanation the thought is too abruptly 
introduced ; therefore it would be more correct to refer οὕτως to what pre- 
cedes (οὕτως, i.e., according to the rule stated in ver. 10 f., Briickner), and 
to take ὡς not as an explication, but as “a confirmation” (Lange). — James 
takes up not only the doing (ποιεῖτε), but also the speaking (λαλεῖτε), to 
which not only the conduct of his readers, specified in ver. 2 ff., but their 
sinful volubility of tongue, generally led; see i. 19, 111. 1-12. The repetition 
of οὕτω serves for the heightening of the thought; διά here is the same as in 
Rom. ii. 12; see also John xii. 48, v. 45; correctly, Wiesinger: ‘“‘the law 
is a means because a measure;” incorrectly, Kern: vi ac jure leges. The 
νόμος ἐλευθερίας is also here not the gospel, as the publication of the grace of 
God, or the Christian religion (Semler, Pott, Gebser), also not specially the 
νόμος βασιλικός Mentioned in ver. 7 as a single command, but it is the saime 
as is mentioned in chap. i. 25.1 The demand which James here expresses 
is that Christians, as such, who shall be judged by the νόμος ἐλευθερίας, must 
regulate by it the whole course of their lives. From what has directly gone 
before, one might infer that James wishes particularly to warn against the 
pretext combated in ver. 10, but ver. 13 shows that he has rather in view 
the want of compassionate love, forming the heart and pulse of the νόμος 
ἐλευθερίας, Which was renounced by his readers in their ἀτιμάζειν τὸν πτωχόν 
(ver. 6). 

Ver. 13 refers back to chap. i. 27, and concludes the section, appending 
to διὰ νόμου ἐλ. κρίνεσθαι a closer definition: for the judgment is unmerciful 
against those who exercise no mercy; mercy rejoices against judgment. — That 
which in the judgment passes sentence on Christians, who shall be judged 
διὰ νόμου ἐλευθερίας, is thus mercy. Against the unmerciful the judgment will 
be unmerciful. On the form ἀνέλεος, see critical notes; in Rom. i. 31 it is 
ἀνελεήμων; thus also in LXX., Prov. v. 9, xi. 17. Luther incorrectly trans- 
lates it: “it will pass an unmerciful judgment;” ἀνέλεος is not an attribute, 


adversus illam faciendo.—Ticinus thus well 
expresses the unity of the law: lex tota est 
quasi una vestis, quae tota violatur, si vel unam 
ex ea partem demus; quasi harmonia, quae 
tota corrumpitur, si vel unica vox dissonet ; and 
Gataker: quasi catena aurea, quae tota rupta 
est, si unicum nexum abrumpas. What Gun- 
kel says is indeed correct: ‘‘ The solidarity 
consists in this, that God has given with the 
equal obligation the one as well as the other 


commandment;” but the point of equal obli- 
gation is not here brought forward by James. 

1 Kern: ‘* James, by the expression διὰ v. 
ἐλ., reminds them that the νόμος for Christians 
is indeed according to form a new one, being 
converted into a willing impulse, but that it 
does not on this account cease, according to 
its nature, to be the rule of moral action, and 
thus also of judgment.” 


86 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


but a predicate. — Many expositors incorrectly explain ἔλεος = ἀγάπη; the 
former is a species of the latter, although James puts the chief stress upon it; 
see chap. i. 27. — The concluding sentence is subjoined ἀσυνδέτως ; see chap. 
iii. 2,iv.12. “Asyndeton dicti pondus auget.” In the verb κατακαυχᾶται (only 
here and in chap. iii. 14 and Rom. xi. 18), κατα, on which the genitive κρίσεως 
depends, expresses the opposite tendency. Kpiow according to its nature 
threatens to condemn the sinner (thus the believing Christian does not cease 
to be a sinner), but mercy has the joyful confidence (καυχᾶται) that it will 
overcome the threatening power of judgment.1— By a conversion of the 
abstract idea ἔλεος into the concrete, “the merciful man,” the peculiar im- 
press is taken from the expression, and a lax interpretation is introduced. 
On the sentiment, see Matt. v. 7; Prov. xvii. 5; Tob. iv. 7-11. Several 
expositors (Calvin, Cappellus, Wolf, Laurentius, Baumgarten, Bengel) incor- 
rectly supply the genitive Θεοῦ to ἔλεος, by which a thought is introduced 
entirely foreign to the context. 

Ver. 14. After James, proceeding from the exhortation to receive the 
word (τὸν. . . λόγον τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχάς) In meekness, had enforced 
the necessity not only to be hearers but also doers of the same, and with 
reference to the respect of persons practised by the readers had designated 
the exercise of compassionate love as true θρησκεία, he now, in close connec- 
tion with the preceding, opposes the opinion that πίστις which has no works 
(χωρὶς ἔργων) can save (σῶσαι). The section from ver. 14 to ver. 26 treats of 
this; for the correct understanding of which it is to be held fast that James 
considers πίστις as the necessary ground of σωτηρία, which is evident from 
chap. i. 18-21, but of course that πίστις which is not without works. In com- 
bating the above delusion, James adopts his characteristic mode of first stat- 
ing in clear and well-defined language the fundamental thought on which 
all the rest depends, and he does so by the introduction of brief interroga- 
tive sentences which reject that false opinion. He commences with the 
words τί τὸ ὄφελος ; see ver. 16 and 1 Cor. xv. 32. The article is not super- 
fluous: What is the use which arises from it, if, ete.; without the article 
(according to B and C) it means: What kind of use is it = what use is it? 
thus frequently with the classics. With regard to the construction with 
ἐάν, see Matt. xvi. 26; 1 Cor. xiii. 3. The following words: ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ 
τις ἔχειν, Show that James had in view one who trusts for σωτηρία, because he 
has faith, although works are wanting to him. Many expositors place the 
emphasis on λέγῃ, as if it was thereby indicated that this assertion was a 
mere pretext, the person introduced as speaking not in reality possessing 
faith. Gataker: emphasis hic est in voce DICENDI; intelligit istos fidem quidem 
jactare, non tamen habere; similarly Vorstius, Piscator, Wolf, Baumgarten, 
Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Kern, Wiesinger, Stier, Lange, Philippi (G/aubensl., i. 
Ῥ. 298 ff.); also De Wette translates λέγῃ by “pretends.” This is incorrect, 
for the sequel does not give the lie to this λέγειν, but, on the contrary, it is 


1 The explanation of Wiesinger, that James _ assured of grace beforehand, and glories in it,” 
intends to say ‘‘ that mercy has nothing to fear, is not entirely suitable, inasmuch as an objec- 
rather that she confounds the terrors of the tive idea (κρίσις) is thus converted into a sub- 
judgment by her confidence with which she is _jective (the terrors of the judgment). 


CHAP. II. 14. 87 


granted that the man may have faith without having works. Besides, 
it is self-evident that James did not require to say that a faith, which one 
has not, cannot save him. That it is not simply said ἐὰν πίστιν τις ἔχη, is 
explained from James’s lively mode of representation, by which he intro- 
duces his opponent as appealing to his πίστις. It is also incorrect to em- 
phasize the want of the article before πίστιν (Schneckenburger: recte articulo 
caret = to have faith, quum revera non habeat τὴν πίστιν, ver. 13 ita omissio 
articuli jam quodammodo scriptoris judicium est). The article is here wanting, , 
as is often the case in the N. T. where the word expresses something definite 
in itself (thus Briickner), particularly when it is to be brought forward 
according to its quality. Also πίστιν must not be precisely explained as-= 

NUDA notitia, or hardly = ΝΌΡΑ professio; for those whom James combats 
could not possibly think that they by their faith possessed only the so-called 
theoretical faith, but rather they considered it the whole and complete faith. 

Also this faith was not defective in point of confidence, which Lange should 
not have denied, for they thought to be saved thereby; although this was 
not true confidence, but an empty reliance on Christ;? they indeed believed, 
but they did not receive Christ in themselves as a principle of a new 
life; the object of their faith remained to them purely external, and thus 
they wanted those works which spring from living faith.3 -- ἔργα de μὴ ἔχῃ]. 

ἔργα is here indeed entirely general, but according to the context ‘hose works 
are meant which are proofs of living faith, by which the νόμος ἐλευθερίας is 
fulfilled on the ground of πίστις. ---- After ἔχῃ a simple comma (Gebser) is not 
to be put, but a note of interrogation; the verse contains two questions, the 
second interrogative sentence μὴ δύναται, x.7.2., confirming the judgment con- 
tained in the first, that it profits nothing to have faith without works. 

Some expositors incorrectly put a special emphasis on the article before 
πίστις (Bede: fides 1LLA, quam vos habere dicitis; or, that faith which has no 
works; soalso Lange). The article here has not vim pronominis demonstrativi, 
but is used because there is a resumption of the previous idea (πίστις); see 
chap. i. 3 and iv. 15. It is also incorrect to supply out of what goes before 
the more precise definition of faith: quae non habetur revera sed dicitur tantum- 
modo et jactalur (Theile), or to supply μόνη (Pott), or to understand by πίστις 
here bare notitia. Recourse has been had to these explanations, because it 
was thought that James otherwise denied to faith its saving power, which 
is not to be assumed. But the force of αὐτόν has been overlooked. If this 
pronoun be taken into consideration, it is evident that James does not affirm 
generally that faith cannot save, but that it cannot save him whose faith, 


1 λέγῃ is the more appropriate, as a faith 
without works, as James indicates in ver. 18, 
is something which cannot be proved, of which 
he who possesses it can only give information 
by λέγειν. 

2 It was otherwise with them than with 
those Christians who indeed considered the 
teaching of the gospel as true, and did not 
doubt to be saved, but who rested their hopes 
not on Christ as the object of faith, but on their 


supposed righteousness, i.e., on their good 
works; for James entirely denies good works 
to them, and never indicates that they appealed 
to their supposed good conduct. 

8 For the view here rejected, an appeal is 
incorrectly made to ver. 19, as those thought 
to have in their faith the guaranty of their 
σωτηρία, whilst their faith only produced φρίσα 
σειν to the demons. 


88 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


on which he trusts, is destitute of works; for αὐτόν refers back to the subject 
τις, that is, to the person whom James has introduced as speaking. — σῶσαι], 
as in i. 21, is used here of the attainment of future salvation ; the expression 
is explained from the fact that eternal condemnation belongs to sinful man 
as such, and thus requires a deliverance in order to be saved. The idea 
σωτηρία generally signifies in the N. T. the future salvation ; see besides other 
passages, particularly 1 Thess. v. 8, where σωτηρία is designated as the object 

*of ἐλπίς. Certainly the present state of salvation of Christians may also 
be called σωτηρία, but it is evident from the connection with what precedes 
that James has not that in view, but the complete salvation (against 
Lange). 

Vy. 15,16. James illustrates the idea that faith is dependent for its 
proof on works, otherwise if these are wanting it is dead and profits noth- 
ing, by an example of compassion, which also, if without the corresponding 
works, is dead and can profit nothing. The representation of this simili- 
tude has the same form as the description of the case mentioned in vy. 2 and 
3: first, the statement of the circumstances, and then of the conduct. The 
particle dé (Lachmann, Tischendorf) is not merely transitional (metabasis, 
Wiesinger), but is to be explained from the fact that in this verse the argu- 
ment against the opponent brought forward commences (Schneckenburger, 
De Wette). — Those requiring help are by the name ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφῇ charac- 
terized as members of the Christian community, in order to bring out more 
strongly the obligation to active assistance. — By'the words γυμνοὶ... τροφῆς 
their destitute condition is described. There is no need to interpret γυμνός 
by male vestitus (Laurentius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneck- 
enburger, De Wette, Theile, Wiesinger); it is rather nudus, naked, but is 
certainly also so used when there is no absolute nakedness, but when the 
clothing can hardly be considered as clothing. On λειπόμενοι, see chap. i. 4, 5. 
— ἐφήμερος] in the N. T. az. Aey., is neither = diurnus (Morus: quod in unum 
diem sufficit) nor = hodiernus (Hottinger); but ἡ ἐφήμερος τροφῇ is = ἡ Kad’ 
ἡμέραν ἀναγκαῖα τροφὴ (Pott, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger). 

Ver. 16 describes the conduct towards those requiring help. — τις ἐξ ὑμῶν] 
is to be taken generally, and is not, with Grotius, to be limited to those qui 
fidem creditis sufficere ad salutem.—.The address: ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρῆνῃ) expresses 
a friendly wish at departure; similar to πορεύεσθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, Acts xvi. 36; 
Judg. xviii. 6. ὑπάγειν εἰς εἰρήνην (Mark v. 34; Luke vii. 50, and other 
places) is somewhat different, where εἰρήνη and ὑπάγειν are not yet conceived 
as united. — With θερμαίνεσθε with reference to γυμνοῖ, warming by clothing 
is specially to be thought of (see Job xxxi. 30; Hag. i. 6); but it is inac- 
curate to explain the verb itself as equivalent to vestiri (Laurentius, Baum- 
garten, Pott, Bengel, Gebser, Hottinger, Theile). — θερμαίνεσθε and χορτάζεσθε 
are not imperatives of the passive, and to be taken in an optative sense 
(Hottinger: utinam aliquis beneficens vobis vestimenta cargiatur; similarly, 
Grotius, Morus, Theile), but imperatives of the middle: Warm yourselves, 
satisfy yourselves; only thus does the contrast appear pointed and definite ; 
that they are not properly to be considered as commanding, but as exhort- 
ing, is of itself evident. The plural μὴ δῶτε δέ is explained from ἐξ ὑμῶν; τὰ 


CHAP. II. 17, 18. 89 


ἐπιτήδεια (ἅπ. Aey.) = τὰ ἀναγκαῖα ; 1 the things necessary for the support of the 
body, namely, clothing and food. The question τί τὸ ὄφελος; brings forward 
that such a sympathy which is χωρὶς ἔργων profits nothing, has no efficacy; 
to this neither egentibus (Hottinger) nor dicentibus (Gomar, Baumgarten, 
Semler) is to be supplied. 

Ver. 17. Application of the similitude. The verse forms one sentence, 
of which ἡ πίστις is the subject, and νεκρὰ ἐστίν is the predicate; neither after 
πίστις (Pott) nor after ἔργα (Michaelis) is a colon to be put. After ἔχῃ the 
idea continually (Baumgarten) is not to be supplied. πίστις has here the same 
meaning as in ver. 14. — From the fact that James calls faith dead if it has 
not works, it is evident that by these works is not meant something which 
must be added to faith, but something which grows out of faith; the épya 
here treated of are works of faith, in which are the germs of faith. νεκρὰ is 
here not to be explained by operibus destituta, but = inanima, equivalent to a 
dead body ;? correctly, De Wette: “dead, that is, without the power of life; 
thus not primarily to be referred to its effects, but to be understood as its 
internal nature;” however, James thus designates a faith without works 
to prove that it οὐ δύναται σῶσαι and οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖται. --- The more precise state- 
ment καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν has been variously understood. Grotius considers it as 
simply pleonastic; some critics separate it from νεκρά and take κατά = 
against (Moller = καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, i.e., sibimet ipsi repugnat; Augusti: contra semet 
ipsam); Others unite it with πίστις (Knapp = fides sola; Baumgarten: “in 
so far as faith is alone”). But καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς belongs evidently, as 1ts position 
shows, to vexpa (De Wette, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Lange). It 1s thus 
emphatically stated that a faith without works is not only dead in reference 
to something else, but dead in reference to itself. It serves for the intensifi- 
cation of the idea νεκρά, yet not so that by it the existence of a πίστις without 
works was denied (against Schneckenburger). 

Ver. 18. The words ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεὶ τις, with which this verse begins, apparently 
introduce an objection, as in 1 Cor. xv. 35; by which under τις a certain 
one is to be considered as an opponent of the thought above expressed, who 
with σύ addresses James, and by κἀγώ denotes himself. But against this 
explanation the sentiment itself is opposed; for as James reproaches those 
against whom he argues, that they have indeed faith but not works, he could 
not possibly put into the mouth of his opponent, that the same had works, 
but he (James) had faith. The opinion of Pott, that σὺ... κἀγώ = ἄλλος καὶ 
ἄλλος, cannot be justified (so also Bouman: hie. . . ille). By that explana- 
tion it would require to be said: σὺ ἔργα ἔχεις, κἀγὼ πίστιν ἔχω, namely, in the 
sense: If thou place all stress on works, J am not the less entitled to place 
all stress on faith. Kern attempts to remove the difficulty by taking the first 


1 Gloss.: τὰ πρὸς τροφὴν ἁρμόδια; Suidas: 
ἀφορμαὶ εἰς τὸν βίον ; see Herod., ii. 174; Thuc., 
ii. 23; Cicero, Off.i. 8; “‘ necessaria vitae prae- 
sidia.” 

2 The comparison of faith without works to 
a dead body is found among the old interpreters 
in such a manner that it formed a controversy 


between Catholic and Protestant interpreters; 
whilst Lorinus says: ‘‘ mortuum corpus verwm 
corpus est, ut sine operibus et charitate fides,” 
Laurentius remarks: ‘‘sicut homo mortuus 
non est verus homo, ita nec fides mortua vera 
tides.” 


90 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


sentence: ad πίστιν ἔχεις, aS a hypothetical protasis, and the second, on the 
other hand, κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω, as the apodosis, and explains it: “If thou hast 
faith, so have I also works, because, as thou sayest, faith and works cannot 
be separated.” But to this explanation is opposed not only the fact that 
James has not, in what has gone before, properly expressed the inseparable- 
ness of faith and works, but has only presupposed it; but also that the oppo- 
nent should appeal to works, whilst James considers him as a person who 
has no works.!_ With these difficulties it is not to be wondered at that 
almost all expositors have decided for the view that ἀλλ᾽ pei τις is not here 
to be taken as the form of an objection, and that by τις not an opponent of 
James is meant, but a “ vir sapiens et intelligens,” to whom James assigns the 
part of carrying on the argument in his stead against his opponent. Wie- 
singer: “ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεὶ τις cannot here be possibly taken, as in 1 Cor. xv. 35, 
Rom. ix. 19, as an objection, for, as od ziorw ἔχεις already shows, the person 
introduced as speaking is on the side of James, and like him combats faith 
without works.” Accordingly, with σύ the same opponent is addressed 
whom James had hitherto in view, and with κἀγώ the person called τις desig- 
nates himself as agreeing with James. But against this explanation there 
are many objections. 1. It cannot be denied that the words ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις have 
most decidedly the character of an objection. 2. If they are not so under- 
stood, then ἀλλ᾽ is not only an interruption, but inexplicable; Hottinger, 
indeed, maintains: ἀλλά hic non adversativum esse per se patet; but who will 
agree with him in this? De Wette assumes that by ἀλλά here is expressed 
not primarily the contrast with what immediately precedes, but with the 
error already combated. Wiesinger has, however, correctly rejected this 
opinion, which is the less to be justified “as the error has not yet been per 
se expressed.” ἀλλά must at all events be referred to what directly precedes. 
According to Schneckenburger, it refers ad negationem, quam notitio νεκρός 
involvit, quasi dictum foret: ἰδία fides non est fides, SED dicat aliquis; but that 
πίστις, if it has not works, is not πίστις at all, is so little the opinion of James 
that He ascribes a πιστεύειν to the devils (ver. 19); νεκρά is here arbitrarily 
explained as = nulla, and not less arbitrarily is it observed on πίστιν ἔχεις : 
“interlocutor ad hominis errorem descendens fidem, quam profitetur, eum habere 
SUMIT,” since James does not the least indicate that the words σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις 
are to be understood in the sense: “I will even assume that thou hast faith.” 
The opinion of several critics, that ἀλλά is here (= quin etiam) “a correction 
of the preceding judgmeut, heightening it” (Wiesinger), and indicates “that 
the opinion that a faith without works is dead is here surpassed ” (Gunkel), 
is of no avail, as the opinion contained in this verse on faith without works 
is evidently not, as Briickner falsely thinks, stronger than that which is 
expressed in ver. 17 with νεκρά éorw.? Accordingly, all attempts at the 


1 The explanation of Knapp, that the first 
words are interrogative: ‘‘tune quia ipse fide 


is correctly relinquished by himself, as it is too 
artificial to be considered as correct. 


cares, propterea eam contemnis?’’ and to 
which the answer is then given: ‘‘immo vero 
plus habeo, quam quantum tu et habes et pos- 
tulas, fidem videlicet cum factis conjunctam,” 


2 Wiesinger observes: ‘* The person intro- 
duced as speaking not only confirms what was 
said before, but goes beyond it; not only that 
such a faith is dead, but that it cannot even 


\ 


CHAP. II. 18. 91 


explanation of ἀλλά do not attain their object.1_ 3. With this explanation it 
is entirely uncertain how far the speech of τις extends, and where James 
again resumes; and accordingly the greatest uncertainty here occurs among 
expositors. 4. Lastly, it cannot be perceived why James should express 
his own opinion in the person of another who is designated by the entirely 
indefinite term τις. Wiesinger and most expositors do not touch on this 
point at all. Baumgarten thinks that James speaks here in the words of a 
stranger, in order the better and the more freely to convey the notion of 
erroneousness in severer terms. But this is a pure fiction; that James did 
not shrink from expressing himself freely and strongly, the whole Epistle is 
a proof.? These objections are too important to permit us in spite of them 
to rest on the above explanation. But, on the other hand, the difficulties 
which arise if ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεὶ τις is taken as a form of objection appear to be invin- 
cible. They are only so, however, when it is assumed that the person intro- 
duced with σύ as speaking means James, and with κἀγώ himself. But this 
assumption is by no means necessary. Since James introduces τις as speak- 
ing, so both words σύ and κἀγώ can be understood as well from the stand- 
point of James as from that of the speaker; that is to say, that with σύ the 
opponent with whom James argues, and against whom he asserts that πίστις 
without works is dead, is meant, and with éyé James himself. The meaning, 
then, is as follows: But some might say in answer to what I have just 
stated, defending thee,? thou (who hast not the works) hast faith, and J, on 
the other hand (who affirm that faith without works is dead), have works ; + 
my one-sided insisting on works is no more right than thy one-sided insist- 
ing on faith. By this explanation, which has nothing linguistically against 
it, not only is the nature of ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις preserved, but it expresses a thought 
entirely suited to the context, whilst the following words give the answer by 
which this objection is decidedly repelled. This answer is in form not 
directed to the person introduced as speaking, but to the opponent with 
whom only James has properly to do, and whom he in his lively style can 


prove its existence without works: it is noth- 
ing.” But with these last words Wiesinger 
inserts a thought into the words which they 
by no means contain, the same thought which, 
according to Schneckenburger, is contained in 
νεκρά ἐστι. 

1 The pointing ἀλλ, ἐρεῖ τις, ov κοτιλ 
(Schulthess, Gebser, Rauch), does in no way 
remove the difficulty, and has also this against 
it, that the closely-united formula ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις 
is thus disunited. 

2 Lange thinks to remove the difficulty by 
ascribing to the words “ἃ grand prophetical 
character,” whilst by τις is meant ‘the Gen 
tile-Christian world,” which has proved ‘ by 
its works of faith that it has had the true faith, 
whereas Ebionism, with its want of consistency 
in Christian works of love, has proved that its 
orthodoxy was not a living faith.” But, apart 
from the arbitrariness of this interpretation, 
αλλά is by it referred not to the preceding dec- 


laration, but falsely to the erroneous opinion 
of τις (ver. 14). 

3 The view of Stier, that by the speaker a 
Pharisaical Jew is to be understood, who takes 
occasion from the inoperative faith of Chris- 
tians to mock the Christian faith in general, 
has been rightly rejected by Wiesinger. If 
James had meant by τις a Jew, he would have 
called him such. 

4 This is a form of expression which fre- 
quently occurs. Thus, if one speaks with 
Charles, and says to him: Henry says thou 
hast found the book which I have lost. Briick- 
ner, indeed, thinks that this example is not 
appropriate, but he does not give his reasons 
for saying so. Lange calls the explanation 
here given artificial, but he does not say in 
what its artificial character consists. The ob 
jections which Lange brings against it are 
founded on his having read erroneously de- 
fending himself instead of defending thee. 


92 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


now the more directly address, as the objection made was the expression of 
his soul. The meaning of this answer is as follows: Hast thou actually, 
as that person says, faith, —if this is to be of use it must manifest itself, 
but this without works is impossible; thou canst not even show thy faith 
without works: as for myself, who have works, these are a proof that faith 
is not wanting, for without faith I could do no works. On δεῖξον, Schnecken- 
burger correctly remarks: vide ne verbo tribuas significationem EXHIBENDI ET 
MANIFESTANDI (PER VITAM), Sed retine primam el simplicem COMPROBARI quasi 
ante judicem. —riv πίστιν cov is said because the opponent ascribed faith to 
himself (ver. 14); thus “the faith which thou sayest thou hast” (Wiesinger). 
— With the reading of the Rec., ἐκ τ. ἔργων (instead of χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων), the 
words are to be taken as ironical (so also Lange), as the supposition is that 
works are wanting to him. — With these words not faith generally, but liv- 
ing faith which saves, is denied to the opponent; if the same is not proved 
by works, it is dead. —In what James says of himself, ἔργα are the we~ks 
which proceed from faith, as these could not otherwise authenticate it. It 
is to be observed that in the first clause τὴν πίστιν, and in the second ἐκ τῶν 
ἔργων, Stand first, because these ideas are the points on which the whole 
turns. 

Ver. 19. James shows, in the faith of demons, with whom it produces 
trembling, how little faith without works effects salvation. With σὺ πιστεύεις, 
which is not, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be taken as a question, it 
is granted to the opponent that be possesses faith. From the fact that what 
is specifically Christian is not named as the object of faith, it is not to be 
inferred, with Calvin, that in this entire section not the Christian faith (de 
fide) is spoken of, but, only de vulgari Dei notitia. Expositors correctly 
assume that this one article of faith is only adduced as an example. The 
selection of precisely this article on the unity of God is not to be explained 
because “the Jewish Christians were particularly proud of it, so that it 
kept them back from fully surrendering themselves to the Christian faith” 
(Lange), but because it distinguished revealed religion from all heathenism. 
However much the position of the individual words vary (see critical notes), 
yet the unity of God appears in all as the chief idea; comp. particularly, 
Deut. vi. 4; Neh. ix. 6; Isa. xliv. 6, xlv. 6; Matt. xxiii. 9; Mark xii. 29, 32; 
Rom. iii. 30; 1 Cor. viii. 4, 6; and, in this Epistle, chap. iv. 12. In Her- 
mas, i. 2, Mand. 1, it is said: πρῶτον ravtwy πίστευσον, ὅτι εἰς ἐστιν ὁ Oedc. — De 
Wette, with whom Philippi coincides, thinks that by the construction with 
ὅτι the faith which the opponent has is characterized as merely theoretical ; 
but it is, on the other hand, to be observed, that a construction with εἰς or ἐν 
here, where the unity of God is to be adduced, could hardly have been used 
(so also Briickner). —James grants, by the words καλῶς ποιεῖς, that this faith 
is something in itself entirely good (see ver. 8). Several expositors, as 
Calvin, Semler, Hettinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, Bouman, 
find in the expression a trace of irony, which others, as Laurentius, Baum- 
garten, Grotius, Pott, Gebser, De Wette, deny. Though not in the state- 
ment by itself, yet in the whole expression there is something ironical 
(Lange, Briickner), which, in the combination of πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν (as 


CHAP. 11. 20, 21. _ 93 


Wieseler remarks), rises to sarcasm. This sarcasm is, moreover, to be 
recognized in demons being placed in opposition to the opponent. — καί 
before τὰ δαιμόνια is not to be explained by ἀλλὰ καί (Pott), or atqui (Theile) ; 
by the insertion of a contrary reference the peculiar severity of the expres- 
sion is only weakened. That James, in his reference to the unity of God, 
mentions the demons, is in accordance with the view that the heathen divin- 
ities are demons; comp. LXX. Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. σον. 5, ev. 37; 1 Cor. 
x. 20; and Meyer in loco: As these are the occasion of polytheism, so they 
are hostilely opposed to the one God; but, in their usurped lordship over 
the heathen world, they tremble before the one God, who will again rescue 
the world and judge them. It is wholly arbitrary to take τὰ δαιμόνια = dae- 
moniaci (Wetstein), or to think on the demons in the possessed (Semler, 
Gebser, Schneckenburger). Pott incorrectly paraphrases the καί between 
πιστεύουσιν and φρίσσουσι by καὶ ὅμως: the simple copulative meaning of. the 
word need not here be altered. ¢piccew, an Gz. Aey., is used particularly of 
the hair standing on end (Job iv. 15), and is therefore a stronger expression 
than δεδοικέναι and τρέμειν. 

Ver. 20 introduces the following proof from Scripture, that faith without 
works is dead, and accordingly cannot have δικαιοῦσθαι as its consequence. 
The question θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι expresses the confident assurance of victory over 
the opponent; the address ὦ ἄνθρωπε xevé, deep indignation at him. κενός 
does not here indicate intellectual defect (Baumgarten = stupid, incapable 
of thinking; Pott = short-sighted), but the want of true intrinsic worth, in 
opposition to the imaginary wealth which the opponent fancies he possesses 
in his dead faith. The word is only here used in the N. T. of persons. 
The ὦ, placed first, which is frequently used in reproof, —see Matt. xvii. 17; 
Luke xxiv. 25; Rom. ix. 20 (Winer, p. 165 [E. T., 183]),— intensifies the 
censure. The thought is essentially the same whether νεκρά or ἀργῇ is read. 
— ἀργός], equivalent to idle, vain, that which profits and effects nothing,} is 
also used of a capital sum which lies idle, and therefore bears no interest, 
thus is a dead capital. Not because dpyf “deserves the preference with a 
view to the sense” (Wiesinger), but only because it is difficult to consider 
it as a gloss, is it to be considered — against the authorities which testify 
for νεκρά (see critical note) —as the original reading. — As χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων 
stands here instead of ἐὰν μὴ ἔργα ἔχῃ (ver. 17), the article ἡ is not to be 
stpplied before χωρίς (against Beza, Baumgarten, and others). 

Ver. 21. The testimony to which James first appeals is what happened 
to Abraham. The reference to Abraham is completely explained from his 
historical importance, and which is also indicated by ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν. --- ἡμῶν] 
because both James and his readers belonged to the nation of Israel sprung 
from Abraham. By the question with od the thought is characterized as 
such to which all —thus all the opponents — must assent: Was not Abraham 
our father justified by works? The participial sentence which follows declares 
what works procured for him justification: when he offered Isaac his son upon 


1 It is inaccurate to take ἀργός as equivalent the conduct of the subject. They are united 
to ἄκαρπος (Frank: unproductive) ; as this in- together not as identical, but only as related, 
dicates the condition, that, on the contrary, ideas, in 2 Pet. i. 8. 


04 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


the altar ?— The reference to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and especially 
to his declaration in Rom. iv. 1 ff., has misled expositors into many arbitrary 
explanations of this verse, and particularly of the word ἐδικαιώθη. In order 
to have a sure foundation for interpretation, two things are to be examined, 
— (1) the context, and (2) the linguistic usage. (1) As regards the context, 
the question treated in this whole section is, How the Christian is saved;1 
comp. the question in ver. 14: μὴ δύναται ἢ πίστις σῶσαι αὑτόν; and the connec- 
tion of that section with the preceding, where the discourse is about the 
divine judgment (ver. 12: κρίνεσθαι; ver. 13: ἡ κρίσις). As James appeals 
to Abraham for his assertion that faith without works cannot save, it is evi- 
dent that by ἐδικαιώθη he cannot mean something which happened to Abra- 
ham from himself, but only something which happened to him from God; 
so that the meaning cannot be “ Abraham justified himself by his works,” 
but only that “God justified him on the ground of his works.”? (2) As 
regards the linguistic usage, δικαιοῦν corresponds to the Hebrew ΡΣ, 
which, as a judicial term, has the meaning: to declare one PIS by an acquittal 
from guilt, and is opposed to JYWI (LXX.: καταγινώσκειν, καταδικάζειν) = to 
declare one YW) by a sentence of condemnation; comp. Exod. xxiii.7; Deut. 
xxv. 1; 1 Kings viii. 32; 2 Chron. vi. 23; Prov. xvii. 15; Isa. v. 23, 1. 8, 
1111. 11; in the Apocrypha, comp. Ecclus. x. 29, xiii. 22, xxiii. 11, xxxiv. 5, 
xlii. 2. δικαιοῦν has also the same meaning in the N. T., where, especially 
(besides the passages treating of the Pauline doctrine of justification), 
Matt. xii. 87, Rom. ii. 18, Luke xviii. 14 are to be compared. This 
judicial meaning of the word is here to be retained. It is true, as δικαιοῦν 
(similarly the English word “to justify ’’) occurs not only in the judicial 
sense, but, also more generally, as also p'7¥1, in the sense “set forth as 
righteous " ὃ (comp. Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 29; Rom. iii. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16), 
the passage has been explained: “ Abraham has been proved righteous,” or, 
“has proved himself righteous” (so already Calvin, and, in recent times, 
Philippi). But this explanation is unsuitable, since, according to this view, 
justification did not happen to Abraham from God (as must be conceived 
according to the context), but from his works; thus it was Abraham who 


1 Philippi erroneously maintains that the 
question here treated is to prove that faith 
has to manifest itself by works if it is to be 
regarded as true faith. But James designates 
the faith of his opponents as vexpa, not merely 
because it has no works, but because it can- 
not effect the σωτηρία which they expected 
from it. 


2 Correctly, Wiesinger: ‘‘In ἐδικαιώθη the 
passive sense is decidedly to be retained, and, 
indeed, a Deo ...; not of the human judg- 
ment is the discourse here and in ver. 23, but 
of the divine; as it treats of the proposition in 
ver. 14, that only an active faith can save.’ 
This is the more to be maintained, as the 
thought, that faith has to justify itself before 
men as living, is so void of importance that 
James could not lay such stress upon it. 


8 This is the prevailing meaning of ΤΥ ΤΊ, 
which is differently modified according to the 
different circumstances to which it is referred. 
It is chiefly used of a judicial sentence, whether 
of God or of a human judge, by which one is 
declared D°J¥; yet it also occurs in another 
reference, namely, of every agency which 
causes one to appear as righteous, whether 
that agency is exercised by the person in ques- 
tion or by others. The N. T. δικαιοῦν corre- 
sponds to this usage. Strictly taken, it is 
accordingly not correct to translate δικαιοῦν 
by “‘ proved to be righteous,”’ or ‘‘ approved to 
be righteous,” as the ideas proving and ap- 
proving, according to their proper and strict 
meaning, are not contained in it. Comp., how- 
ever, the excellent treatment of the word in 
Cremer’s dictionary. 


CHAP. II. 21. 95 


justified himself by his works, i.e., proved himself to be righteous.!_ If we 
hold fast to the judicial meaning, then it is to be observed that, in the con- 
ception of the word, neither any thing about the disposition of him who is the 
object of the declaration of righteousness, nor about the ground of justification 
(whether it rests in the judge or in the conduct of him who is justified), is 
indicated. For this reason the explanation of Wiesinger: a Deo justus 
agnitus, is incorrect, as the idea of a ratifying recognition of the already exist- 
ing condition is not contained in the word. As little is it to be vindicated 
when Hofmann thinks that δικαιοῦσθαι here imports: “to become a δίκαιος, 
inasmuch as he then answered to the will of God relating to him;” for, on 
the one hand, by this a meaning (namely, being made a righteous person) 
is ascribed to the word which it has not; and, on the other hand, no one 
can make himself a righteous person by his works, but only can prove him- 
self to be such.” James says nothing else than that Abraham was declared 
righteous (by God) ἐξ ἔργων. By ἐξ ἔργων the reason is specified, on Abraham’s 
part, on account of which a declaration of righteousness was granted to him. 
By these works are to be understood not all the works which Abraham has 
done, nor his whole pious life, but, as the clause dvevéyxac ᾿Ισαὰκ, «.7.2., Shows, 
the actual offering of his son Isaac on the altar. The plural ἐξ ἔργων is used 
because the category, at first entirely general, is specified which here comes 
into consideration. It may appear surprising that James here should em- 
phasize precisely that offering as the reason of the declaration of righteous- 
ness, since in the O. T. narrative (Gen. xxii.) a δικαιοῦσθαι of Abraham is not 
mentioned. What James has in view is not “the judgment of God there; 
Gen. xxii. 12 comp. with ver. 16 ff.” (Wiesinger) ; for in these words, which, 
moreover, only serve as an introduction to the declaration which follows, 
nothing is addressed to Abraham, but only it is testified of him that God in 
his action has recognized his fear of God. Not in this, but only in what 
God addresses to him on account of it, because He has recognized him as a 
God-fearing man, can James have found the declaration of Abraham’s right- 


1 Philippi explains the words: Abraham 
was justified before men by works, as a justi- 
Jied man before God by faith. But here there 
are evidently introduced into the idea δικαιοῦσ- 
θαι a series of more precise statements which 
are not contained in it. The explanation of 
Briickner is simpler, who considers ἐδικαιώθη 
to indicate: ‘‘that moral righteousness which 
displays itself on the ground of the activity of 
faith; ”’ but also this interpretation is not to be 
considered correct for the reasons above stated. 
The unsuitableness of this and similar interpre- 
tations is particularly evident from ver. 24. It 
is also to be observed, that in these explana- 
tions the passive is converted into the middle 
voice. In the O. T., it is true, the hithpael of 
ΡΤ is translated in the LXX. by the preterite 
passive of δικαιοῦν (see Gen. xliv. 16); but in 
the N. T. the passive of this verb never occurs 
in this meaning: the middle import is here 


rather expressed by the active with the reflex 
pronoun; comp. Luke x. 29, xvi. 15. 

2 The following explanations are also incor- 
rect: “he was loved as a righteous man” 
(Grotius); “he was made a partaker of the 
favor of God and of alli the blessings springing 
from it’’ (Theile) ; ‘* his justification was rati- 
fied by man”’ (Baumgarten). The translation: 
“ἢ was pardoned”’ (Pott), is inaccurate, be- 
cause the idea of pardon always supposes a 
crime, which δικαιοῦν does not. Also the ex- 
planation of Lange is arbitrary: δικαιοῦν, in 
the N. T. deeper sense, denotes that ‘God 
declares righteousness in the theocratical fo- 
rum before the theocratical congregation con- 
ceived as permanent ; for how can the precise 
statement be contained in the simple verbal 
idea, Lefore whom the declaration of righteous- 
ness was made? 


96 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


eousness. This is the bestowal of the promise (vv. 16-18) by which it is 
expressly said, “because thou hast done this thing” (ver. 16), and “because 
thou hast obeyed my voice” (ver. 18); by which is definitely brought for- 
ward that the promise was granted on account of his obedience — that is, 
on account of his works. What importance, with regard to the promise, the 
obedience of Abraham had in the eyes of God, is clearly brought out from 
Gen. xxvi. 5, where God ratifies this same promise with Isaac in these 
words: “ Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my 
commandments, my statutes, and my laws;” and not less is it to be observed 
when it is said in Ecclus. xliv. 20: ὃς ovverfpnoev νόμον ὑψίστου . .. καὶ ἐν πει- 
ρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστός" διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὅρκῳ ἔστησεν αὐτῷ, x.7.A. It is true that the same 
promise was made to Abraham at an earlier period, and that before he had 
done any thing (Gen. xii. 2, 3); but the difference is, that after the offering 
of his son it was imparted to nim as an inalienable blessing on account of this 
action, and that at the close of his theocratic historical life. In this James 
could rightly recognize a formal declaration of Abraham’s righteousness on 
the part of God. —On the construction ἐδικαιώθη ἐκ, comp. Matt. xii. 37: ἐκ 
τῶν λόγων cov δικαιωθῇσῃ, Where the λόγοι are reckoned as that on the ground of 
which acquittal (or condemnation) takes place. — The words: dvevéyxac .. . 
ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον are not, with Luther, to be translated: “when he had sacri- 
ficed his son upon the altar;” for ἀναφέρειν joined with ἐπί, with the accu- 
sative, is not to sacrifice, but to bring as a sacrifice to the altar (comp. 1 Pet. 
ii. 24); it is therefore incorrect to supply the idea will (Estius: cum obtulisset 
= offere voluisset). Hottinger falsely explains ἐπὶ τ. θυσ. = before the altar. 
To the name ᾿Ισαώκ is emphatically added τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ; comp. Gen. xxii. 16. 

Ver. 22. The direct inference from the preceding. Since the necessity 
of faith to the attainment of salvation was not contested by those with whom 
James disputed, but only the necessity of works; and since James (ver. 21) 
had adduced the example of Abraham to prove that only a faith which is 
not dpyn and χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων profits: in this verse it can only be intended to 
represent how important to Abraham were his works, but not how important 
to him was his faith. This thought is thus clearly and evidently expressed 
in the second hemistich: καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, «.7.2. On the other hand, the first 
hemistich : ὅτι 7 πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὑτοῦ, has been generally understood 
by expositors as if the necessity of faith was intended to be brought forward. 
In this meaning Bengel says: duo commata, quorum in priore, si illud, FIDES, 
in altero OPERIBUS cum accentu pronunciaveris, sententia liquido percipitur, qua 
exprimitur, quid utravis pars alteri conferat. According to this, James would 
have expressed in the first hemistich, that faith was not wanting to Abra- 
ham, that rather it was this from which his works sprung, that accordingly 
Abraham was justified ἐξ ἔργων, because they were works of faith. The same 
explanation is given by Erasmus, Tremellus, Beza, Baumgarten, Gebser, 
Pott, Kern, and others; also by Hofmann and Wiesinger. But the context 
is against it, as this thought does not follow as a consequence from ver. 21. 
Those expositors have accordingly understood the passage more correctly 
who find in the words in question the meaning that the πίστις of Abraham 
was not dead but operative; Estius: operosa fuit, non otiosa, non mortua (so 


CHAP. Il. 29. 97 


Calvin, Laurentius, Hornejus, and others), although their interpretation 
is inaccurate in particulars. — συνήργει]. If συνεργεῖν is taken in its strictly 
literal sense: “to be a συνεργός, to labor or to work along with” (1 Cor. xvi. 
16; 2 Cor. vi. 1), and is translated: “faith wrought with his works,’ the 
idea of James (according to the usage of the word συνεργεῖν in this meaning) 
would be, that whilst works wrought, faith participated in their work. 
But this thought does not correspond with the context, and is, moreover, 
not in itself to be vindicated, since faith and works are not two principles 
working along with one another. — Kern, with whom De Wette coincides, 
takes τοῖς ἔργοις as the dative of reference, and explains it: “faith wrought 
to his works, i.e., was the operative principle for the production of works.” 
This gives, indeed, a suitable enough thought, but linguistic usage is against 
the explanation ; besides, it is not the case that “συν has only a vague refer- 
ence, or, to speak more correctly, no reference at all” (Hofmann). On this 
account other interpreters, as Hofmann, Wiesinger, Briickner, also Philippi, 
correctly take συνεργεῖν here in the meaning of: to help (Rom. viii. 28; 1 
Mace xii. 1). The support which faith gave to works is to be found in 
this, that as it operates to their production, so also to their accomplishment 
in correspondence with the will of God.? By this explanation a special 
emphasis is placed on the expression συνήργει, it being thereby brought 
prominently forward that the faith of Abraham was not ἀργός (ἀ-εργός), but 
exercised an activity, namely, the activity mentioned as helpful to works. 
Against Lange’s explanation: “faith manifested itself operatively at one 
with the works,” besides not being linguistically justified, Briickner rightly 
remarks that here the discourse is not concerning a co-operation of these 
two points. — The second hemistich is not in antithesis with the first, but 
constitutes its complement; whilst the faith of Abraham aided his works, 
faith itself received by works its completion. — ἐτελειώθη] is by many inter- 
preters understood as declarative; Gomarus: FIDES est causa, OPERA effectus ; 
causa autem non perficitur a suo effectu, sed perfecta DECLARATUR, ut fructus 
boni arborem bonam NON EFFICIUNT, sed INDICANT. The same explanation 
is adopted by Calvin, Laurentius, Baumgarten, Gebser, Bengel, Philippi,? 
and others. Also Wiesinger indicates the same meaning with the remark: 
“faith could not be proved complete if it were not already so in itself, for 
the complete work presupposes the complete faith ;” but τελειοῦσθαι does not 


1 In the first edition of this commentary it 
is said: “ Faith was the συνεργός of his works 
—that is, it operated not by itself, but with 
his works. James will here make prominent 
‘that with Abraham both were combined, the 
emphasis, however, according to the context, 
being placed on τοῖς ἔργοις.᾽᾽ This explanation, 
which has found favor with von Oettingen and 
Rauch, is, however, not tenable, as, on the one 
hand, linguistic usage is against it, and on the 
other hand, it was not insisted on by James 
that the faith of Abraham wrought not alone, 
but that it was no inactive (inoperative) 
faith, 


2 The explanation of Hofmann (with whom 
Wiesinger and Briickner coincide) : ‘‘ that his 
action would not have been whatis represented 
in an act of willing obedience, unless faith had 
assisted to its performance,” has this against 
it, that the principal thought would not there- 
by be expressed, but must be added. Philippi, 
correctly : Abraham’s faith was no inert faith, 
but was helpful to his works, namely, to their 
production and accomplishment; i.e., it as- 
sisted him to the performance of good works. 

8 Philippi incorrectly appeals for this 
meaning to 1 John ii, 5, and to ἔσεσθε in 
Luke vi. 35. 


98 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 
signify to be proved, but to be completed.1 Certainly the meaning of James 
cannot be, that faith hitherto incomplete was completed by works, as some- 
thing which was externally added to faith, since faith is the impulse to the 
works; but as little is it his meaning, that faith is already complete (τέλειος) 
before works, and is by works only proved or demonstrated to be so; but 
faith and works are in his view so closely connected, that faith only when 
it produces works or by works (ἐξ ἔργων) becomes ever more completely that 
which it should be according to its nature and destination, and in so far 
only by works attains to its completion; for as the power of love grows and 
is completed by the practice of works of love, so does faith grow and is com- 
pleted by the practice of works in which it manifests itself.2 Thus was 
Abraham’s faith only completed when he stood the severest test, and brought 
his son as an offering upon the altar.8 

Ver. 23. Since what was said of Abraham in the preceding appears to 
conflict with the Scripture, Gen. xv. 6, James was obliged to solve this appar- 
ent contradiction; therefore he adds to what he has said: and (thus) the 
scripture was fulfilled which says, But Abraham believed God, and it was reck- 
oned to him for righteousness; and he was called a friend of God. Most 
expositors (also von Oettingen) explain πληροῦν by comprobare, confirmed, 
and find here the thought expressed, that by Abraham being justified ἐξ 
ἔργων, the scripture: “that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous- 
ness,” received its confirmation. But in this explanation of the word πληροῦν 
there is an arbitrary weakening of the idea. πληροῦν signifies neither in the 
N. T. nor in classical usage: “to confirm,” but always “to fulfil” (see 
Cremer); with regard to a saying, the realization of the thought expressed 
in it by an action following is indicated by πληροῦν, whether that saying be 
in the form of a prediction or not. This meaning of the verb is also here 
to be recognized, and indeed so much the more as James uses the formula 


1 Also Hofmann’s explanation: ‘* The τελεί- 
wots of his faith consisted not in this, that it 
attained from incompleteness to completeness, 
but in this, that by the action, in which it 
proved itself, it attained to its complete forma- 
tion —to its historical accomplishment,” can- 
not be reckoned as appropriate, because τελει- 
ova Gar never means * to be completely formed,” 
if by this expression a becoming complete is 
not intended. Lange agrees with the above 
remark, only he introduces something strange 
when he says: “‘ Abraham by his faith-offering 
attained typically and ideally the τελείωσις, 
which the Jewish Christians were to attain by 
the full proof of Christian brotherly love out 
of faith, and which with them all Israel was to 
attain.” 

2 Luther (in his introduction to First Peter, 
published by Irmischer, vol. Ixx. p. 223 f.) says 
of the fruits of faith: ‘“‘ Although they belong 
to our neighbor, that he may be profited there- 
by, yet the fruit is not external — faith becomes 
stronger thereby. It is an entirely different 


strength than that of the body, for this decays 
and is consumed; but this spiritual strength, 
the more one uses and exercises it, the stronger 
it becomes; it decays when one does not exer- 
cise it.” See also the appropriate remarks 
of Hengstenberg (Zvang. Kirchenz., 1866, p. 
1124 ff.). 

8 When it is objected against this explana- 
tion, that faith must already have been perfect ~ 
in order to produce the perfect work, it is to 
be observed, that it is in the nature of living 
faith always to be becoming stronger, in and 
with the production of works, and thus to per 
fect itself in its nature more and more. Briick- 
ner, indeed, grants that the practice of works, 
has a strengthening reflex efficacy on faith, 
but observes that by this cannot be meant that 
faith was not before already sufficient to jus- 
tify Abraham. But to this it is to be observed, 
that James does not derive the justification 
(meant by him) of Abraham from his faith 
preceding works, but from his faith made per- 
fect by works. 4 


CHAP. II. 23. 99 


with which not only in the N. T. but also in the O. T. (1 Kings ii. 27; 
2 Chron. xxxvi. 22; 1 Mace. ii. 55) generally the fulfilment of a proper pre- 
diction, and always the real proof of an earlier spoken thought, is expressed. 
— The scripture which was fulfilled is Gen. xv. 6, where it is said not only 
that Abraham believed Jehovah, but that He (Jehovah) reckoned it to him 
for righteousness. James (as also Paul in Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6; see also 
1 Mace. ii. 52) cites the passage according to the LXX., where the passive 
ἐλογίσθη is used instead of the active NWN; whilst he only deviates from the 
Greek text in this, that he (as also Paul in Rom. iv. 3) uses ἐπίστευσεν δέ 
instead of καὶ ἐπίστευσεν ; it is to be observed that in the corresponding pas- 
sage, Ps. evi. 31, the passive UNM is also in the Hebrew. — Instead of the 
expression used in these passages, the form: M17! 29 ΠΡῸΣ 1? TAN, is also 
found in the O. T. Deut. xxiv. 13 and vi. 25 (where the LXX. incorrectly 
translate NPS by ἐλεημυσύνη). The contrary of this is indicated by the 
expression : mp WN, Prov. xxvii. 14.— All these expressions import 
a judgment which God pronounces to Himself on a definite conduct of man, 
by which He either reckons it for righteousness or for a curse; with Abra- 
ham it was his faith on account of which God declared him a righteous per- 
son. — But in what does James see the fulfilment of this scripture, that 
testifies this judgment of God on believing Abraham? Evidently in what 
he had already said, namely, that Abraham ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, and which he 
indicates by what follows: καὶ φίλος Θεοῦ ἐκλήθη ; for these words — since they 
belong not to the scripture —are co-ordinate not with καὶ ἐλογίσθη, but with 
καὶ ἐπληρώθη, «.7.A. It is true God regarded Abraham as His φίλος (φίλος Θεοῦ 
is not, as Hofmann and Philippi think, God's friend who loved God, but 
God’s friend whom God ἰουεα 1) the instant he reckoned his faith to him for 
righteousness; but he was called so at a later period, namely, only at the 
time that he was declared righteous by God on account of his works. The 
expressions ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην and ἐδικαιώθη are not regarded by James 
as equivalent, but according to his representation the former was imparted 
to Abraham purely on account of his faith (ἐπίστευσεν), but the latter only 
when his faith was completed by works, thus on account of his works (é 
ἔργων), so that thereby that scripture was fulfilled. It is true this scripture 
is abstractly no promise; but as it notifies facts which point to later actions 
in which they received their full accomplishment, James might consider it 
as a word of promise which was fulfilled by the occurrence of these later 
actions.2— The appellation of Abraham as a φίλος Θεοῦ is not indeed found 
in the LXX.; but in 2 Chron. xx. 7, Jehoshaphat calls him in his prayer 
AIT8 (LXX. : ὁ ἠγαπημένος cov), and in Isa. xli. 8 God Himself calls him *378 
(LXX. ; ὃν ἠγάπησα) ; comp. also Ges. Asar., v. 11: διὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ τὸν ἠγαπημένον 
ὑπὸ ov; also it was not unusual for the Jews to call him φίλος Θεοῦ ; to Gen. 
xviii. 17, the LXX. have added to ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραάμ the words τοῦ παιδύς μου, for 


1 Lange comprehends both; butat all events, obedience, and the divine reckoning of his 
according to the context, the reference given faith for righteousness points to the declara- 
above is to be recognized as the prevailing one. tion of righteousness imparted to him by God 


2 Namely: the faith with which Abraham at a later period after proof of his obedience. 
received the promise οὗ God points to the later 


100 THE EPISTLE’ OF JAMES. 


which Philo puts τοῦ φίλου μου. It is evident from what has preceded, that 
we cannot, with Grotius, Hornejus, Pott, and others, explain ἐκλήθη = factus 
est, fuit. 


REMARK. — When De Wette explains πληροῦν by realized, this is so far inap- 
propriate, as πληροῦν does not directly refer to the fact itself, but to the saying 
of scripture, and as neither of πιστεύειν of Abraham, nor of ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικ., 
can it be said that it “‘was something not.yet wholly real, but the full realiza- 
tion of which occurred only at a later period.”’ For although both point.to a 
later period, yet there was in them something which had actually taken place, 
as Lange correctly adduces. Hofmann also gave an incorrect reference to the 
word, explaining it: ‘‘In the offering of Isaac it was proved that God had 
rightly estimated the faith of Abraham when He counted it for righteousness;”’ 
for, on the one hand, there was no need of a proof that God had rightly esti- 
mated something, of which there is no indication in James, and, on the other 
hand, πληροῦν has not the meaning of confirming or proving.! In opposition to 
the explanation of Philippi: ‘‘the scriptural expression concerning Abraham’s 
justification by faith was, because His justification by faith is in itself a thing 
invisible as it were, an unfulfilled prophecy, until it became visible through 
proof by works,” it is, apart from the unjustifiable insertion of ‘‘ as it were,” 
to be observed that Abraham’s act of obedience, happening at a later period, 
confirmed indeed his faith (thus that ἐπίστευσεν τῷ Θεῷ), but not the righteous- 
ness adjudged to him on account of his faith (that ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικ.), and 
accordingly ἐπληρώθη would be suitable only for the first half of the scriptural 
expression. It is peculiar that, according to the explanation of Philippi, the 
same meaning: ‘‘to be proved,’ is in essence ascribed to the three words — 
δικαιοῦσθαι, τελειοῦσθαι, πληροῦσθαι. 


Ver. 24. An inference universally valid from the adduced example of 
Abraham: “Ye see that by works a man is justified (declared righteous), and 
not by faith alone.’ — ὁρᾶτε) is not imperative (Erasmus, Grotius), but indic- 
ative; Griesbach, Schott, Schulthess, incorrectly understand the sentence as a 
question, which it is as little as in ver. 22.— ἐξ ἔργων] is emphatically placed 
first, because the chief stress is upon ἴῦ. --- δικαιοῦται] has the same meaning 
as in ver. 21. James thus infers from the foregoing that the declaration 
of man’s righteousness proceeds ἐξ ἔργων, and, with special reference to his 
opponents, he adds: οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον3 The chief emphasis is on μόνον; 
for as little as James in ver. 14 has not said that faith cannot save (σῶσαι), 
so little will he here say that a man is not justified ἐκ πίστεως (rather πίστις is 


1 Also in Briickner’s explanation: ‘‘ Both 
the fact that Abraham believed God, and that 
his faith was reckoned to him by God for 
righteousness, was confirmed and proved in 
the offering of Isaac, leading to this that Abra- 
ham ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη," the idea πληροῦν re- 
ceives not its right meaning’ Lange has here 
in essentials adopted the correct meaning, 

2 Philippi, according to his explanation of 
ἐδικαιώθη, ver. 21, must find here the thought 
expressed, that ‘‘ faith alone without works 


cannot prove a man before men to be a believer, 
and justified by faith;’’ but this thought is in 
fact so self-evident, that James would not have 
thought it necessary to state it as a consequence 
from the history of Abraham. The idea op- 
posed to ἐξ ἔργων should not be ἐκ πίστεως, but 
must be ἐκ λόγων (comp. λέγῃ» ver. 14); more- 
over, the simple δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος cannot 
possibly denote: “ἃ man is justified as a be- 
liever whom God, on account of his faith, has 
justified.” 


CHAP. II. 25 101 
to him the presupposition, without which the attainment of salvation cannot 
be conceived, as without it the ἔργα, ἐξ dv δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος are impossible); 
but that the faith which justifies must not be χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων. μόνον is there- 
fore not to be united with οὐκ (Theile: appositionis lege explenda est oratio: non 
solum fide, sed etiam operibus , . . nempe cum fide conjungendis), but with 
πίστεως (Theophylact, Grotius, Knapp, Hottinger, Wiesinger, and others) ; 
comp. 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. xi. 23; Gal. i. 23; Phil. i. 26. The declara- 
tion of righteousness, which James intends, is not that by which the believer 
on account of his faith receives the forgiveness of his sins, but, as is evident 
from the connection of the whole section, that which occurs to the believer, 
who has proved his living faith by his works, at the judgment (ἐν τῇ κρίσει, 
ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαι), and by which he receives σωτηρία (ver. 14). When James, 
in reference to this, appeals to what happened to Abraham, there is nothing 
unsuitable, for why should not that which God has done in a definite instance 
be regarded as a type and testimony of what He shall do at the future judg- 
ment? Moreover, this is completely appropriate, since to Abraham, by the 
address to him after the offering of Isaac, the promise which was before 
made to his faith, was rendered unchangeably firm at the close of his theocratic 
life. The present δικαιοῦται is explained, because the thought was to be ex- 
pressed as a universal sentence.} 

Ver. 25. To the example of Abraham, that of Rahab is added: But was 
not in like manner Rahab the harlot justified by works? The form of the sen- 
tence is the same as in ver. 21. — ὁμοίως δὲ καί] does not signify “even so” (as 
Frommann explains it in the Stud. u. Krit., 1833, p. 97), but by ὁμοίως the 
similarity of what Rahab became a partaker with what happened to Abraham 
is brought forward, whilst by δέ the diversity of the relation is indicated. 
This diversity is noted by the addition ἡ πόρνη. Rahab, namely, was a 
πόρνη ; nevertheless, on account of the works which she did (namely, her 
works of faith), she was declared righteous. Thus, by the addition of this 
example, the truth that a man is justified ἐξ ἔργων is yet further confirmed.? 


1 See remarks by the author in the April 
number of the Erlang. Zeitschrift fiir Protest. 
Frank, in his repiy (in the same, p. 220), com 
bating the reference of δικαιοῦται to the final 
judgment, says ‘‘If there was in the life of 
Abraham a justification by works, which may 
be considered as the type and testimony of the 
final acquittal, so there occurs also in the life of 
Christians such acts of justification by works, 
that they may also be regarded as a testimony 
and type of their future justification before the 
judgment-seat of God.” To this it is to be 
replied, that such an act of justification is here 
treated of by which the accounting of his faith 
for righteousness already imparted to the be- 
liever comes to its termination, as was here 
the case with Abraham. But this act, as con- 
cerns Christian believers, occurs not in their 
earthly life, but cnly at the judgment. Philippi 
also incorrectly says that the reference to the 


judgment is not indicated, since it is sufficiently 
indicated by the whole context; see remarks 
on ver. 14. 

2 Bede assigns as a reason why Rahab is 
here adduced as an example’ ‘‘ne quis obji- 
ceret Abrahamum ejusque fidem excelsiorem 
esse, quam et quivis christianus Imitatione eam 
adsequi possit.’”” Grotius thinks. ‘‘ Abrahami 
exemplum Hebraeis ad Christum conversis 
sufficere debebat, sed quia etiam alienigenis 
scribit, adjunxit exemplum feminae extraneae”’ 
(similarly Hofmann); and Schneckenburger 
observes: ‘‘novum additur exemplum e sexu 
muliebri sumtum” All these meanings are, 
however, arbitrary, as there is no indication of 
them in the words before us. This holds also 
good against Lange, according to whose opin- 
ion Rahab is here to be considered ‘‘as a rep- 
resentative of the Gentile Christians in their 
works of faith.” 


102 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


The article ἡ is not, as some expositors think, demonstrative illa; and πορνῆ 
means neither mulier cibaria vendens, nor caupona vel hospita (Lyranus, Gro- 
tius), nor idololatra (Rosenmiiller). — ὑποδεξαμένη τοὺς ἀγγέλους, k.7.4.]. This 
participial sentence mentions the ἔργα on account of which Rahab was jus- 
tified. The correctness of the assertion, that Rahab was justified on account 
of her works, consists in this: that, according to the narrative contained in 
Josh. ii. and vi., life was on account of them granted to her, she was formally 
delivered from that punishment which befell Jericho; see Josh. vi. 24. 
Thus James could with right appeal for the truth of what was said in ver. 
24 to this fact, since also the future declaration of righteousness will be an 
acquittal from punishment. —In Heb. xi. 31 the deliverance of Rahab is 
ascribed to her πίστις, but so that her action 1s likewise mentioned as the 
demonstration of it. Theile explains ὑποδεξαμένη = clam excepit ; but Wie- 
singer correctly observes: “The secondary meaning clam is not contained in 
the word, but in the circumstances;” see Luke x. 38, xix. 6; Acts xvii. 7. 
In the Epistle to the Hebrews the simple verb δεξαμένη is used, and the dyye- 
dow} are there more exactly designated as κατάσκοποι. ἐκβάλλειν is not simply 
emittere (Schneckenburger), but has the secondary meaning of force = thrust 
out, comp. Luke viii. 54; John ii. 15; Acts ix. 40. It denotes the pressing 
haste with which she urged the messengers to go out of the house. ἑτέρᾳ 660], 
i.e., by another way than from that by which they entered the house, namely, 
διὰ τῆς θυρίδος, Josh. ii. 15. For the local dative, see Winer, p. 196 (E. T., 219). 

Ver. 26 is added as a reason (γάρ), primarily indeed, to what directly 
goes before (ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη), but thereby likewise to the universal senti- 
ment contained in ver. 24. James here repeats the same judgment which 
he has already expressed (ver. 17) on πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ; yet heightens it 
by the comparison with σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος : for as the body without the spirit 
is dead, so also faith without works is dead. — τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος]. By σῶμα 
is to be understood the human body, and by πνεῦμα the vital principle ani- 
mating it, by which it lives; whether James has contemplated πνεῦμα 
definitely as the intellectual spirit of man (as “the principle of the morally 
determined and God-derived life peculiar to man”), or generally as the 
breath of life proceeding from God (see Gen. vi. 17, LX X.: πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐν ἢ 
ἐστὶ πνεῦμα ζωῆς; Rev. xi. 11, xiii. 15), remains uncertain. With the body 
without the spirit, which is νεκρός, James compares (οὕτως is not “the sign of 
assurance = even so certainly,” Baumgarten) faith without works (the article 
τῶν denotes works as those which belong to πίστις, its corresponding works), 
which is also vexpéc. This comparison appears so far incongruous, as the 
relation of ἔργα to πίστις does not correspond with that of πνεῦμα to the σῶμα, 
since ἔργα are the fruit, and not the source, of πίστις.3 Therefore some inter- 
preters have by épya understood not works themselves, but love (Theile), or 
“the innermost life of faith in its outwardly operative and visible manifes- 
tation” (Frank); but such an exchange of ideas is not to be justified. Al- 


1 Lange strangely supposes that James has 2 Lange denies the apparent incongruity, 
chosen this expression “in allusion to the fact because ‘“‘the spirit also, in virtue of its actu- 
that the Gentiles of his time were ready tore. _ ality, effects the higher visibility of the body ”! 
ceive the messengers of the gospel.” 


CHAP. II. 26. 103 


ready some of the older expositors, as Gomar, Piscator, Laurentius, Wolf, 
and others, and recently Philippi (Theile is undecided), explain πνεῦμα = 
breath. This, however, is even linguistically objectionable, as πνεῦμα in the 
N. T. occurs in the meaning of breath proceeding out of the mouth only in 
2 Thess. ii. 8, a passage in accordance with the O. T.; but also in sense this 
explanation is not justified, for although “the breath is the proof of the 
existence of life in the body” (Philippi), yet the ideas breath and works 
have too great disparity between them to be parallelized with each other. 
It is more natural, with De Wette, Kern, Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Weiss, 
to assume that James intends not to compare the single members with each 
other (σῶμα with πίστις, and πνεῦμα with ἔργοις), but to make prominent that 
a faith which is χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, is thereby proved to be like to the body, in 
which the πνεῦμα, the source of life, is wanting — which is thus only a dead 
body. With this sentence, in which the idea expressed in ver. 17 is strongly 
confirmed, James closes this section, as from this it is self-evident that faith 
without works cannot effect justification for man, and consequently not 
σωτηρία, and therefore profits nothing (ver. 14). 


1. The doctrine of James in this section is, according to expression, in oppo- 
sition with that of the Apostle Paul (James: ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος Kai οὐκ 
ἐκ πίστεως μόνον: Paul, Gal. ii. 16: ov δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ 
πίστεως; James asks: ᾿Αβραὰμ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαίωθη ; Paul, in Rom. iv. 2, says: 
εἰ "ABpadu ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἐχεῖ καύχημα, ἀλλ᾽ ov πρὸς τὸν Θεόν), It is asked 
whether also the sentiment of the one contradicts that of the other. Until the 
time of Luther, the conviction prevailed that the two agreed in thought. This 
is maintained in recent times by Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Wiesinger, 
Lange, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others. Luther, on the contrary, was of 
opinion that the doctrine of James decidedly contradicted that of Paul; and 
the same view has been expressed in recent times by De Wette, Kern, Baur, 
Schwegler, and others, also Rauch. There is a middle view, that there is indeed 
a diversity of doctrine between Paul and James, but that this does not exclude 
a higher unity; thus Schmid, Weizsacker (Reuter’s Repert., Oct. 1855), Lechler, 
and others. — Already Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede, have, for the sake of 
harmonizing the difference, asserted that the épya of James are different from 
those of which Paul speaks; Paul intends opera legis (Oecumenius: τὰ κατὰ νόμον 
σαββατισμὼν καὶ περιτομῆς καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁγνισμῶν) ; James, on the contrary, opera 
fidet (Oecumenius: ἔργα τὰ πίστιν βεβαιοῦντα). This is indeed true. Paul has to 
do with Judaizing opponents who maintained the necessity of circumcision, and 
consequently of all legal works; but James, with such Christians who trusted 
to simple πίστις, and thought that this would secure their salvation, although 
destitute of corresponding works. Paul had thus to prove that ἔργα τοῦ νόμου 
were not necessary ; James, that ἔργα τῆς πίστεως were necessary. Nevertheless, 
this recognition of the different relations does not suffice to an actual harmoniz- 
ing of the difference; for it has with truth been maintained that, according to 
the doctrinal system of Paul, a justifying efficacy is denied not only to works 
of law, but also to works of faith, since these last do not precede but follow jus- 
tification. — Accordingly a different meaning of the term πίστις has been adopted, 
and it has been maintained that by πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων James understands only 
bare speculation (Oecumenius: ἡ ἁπλῆ συγκατάθεσις), the frigida et nuda notitia, 


104 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ’ 

or indeed even the falsa professio fidei. This is certainly not entirely suitable, 
though Paul does not know by name ἃ πίστις νεκρά, But although it were cor- 
rect, yet the recognition of this distinction does not suffice to reconcile the 
difference; for Wieseler is decidedly right when, against Schmid, Olshausen, 
Neander, and others, he remarks, that it is one thing to say, To be justified by 
Jaith whichis proved by works, and another thing, To be justified by works in 
which faith is proved. Already by Calvin, Calovius, Gerhard, and others, and 
in recent times particularly by Hofmann, Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Philippi, 
and others, the wished-for reconciliation has been attempted to be brought 
about, by ascribing a different meaning to the word δικαιοῦσθαι in James from 
what it has in Paul; that James speaks not de actu, but de statu justificationis. 
But either thereby a meaning is assigned to the word which it never has, or 
there results from it in James an idea inappropriate to the connection; see 
exposition of the verses in question. Hengstenberg (Brief des Jakobus, in the 
Evang. Kirchenz., 1866, No. 91-94) correctly maintains that δικαιοῦσθαι has with 
Paul and James the same meaning; but when he attempts to prove the agree- 
ment of the two modes of expression by the supposition that, as there are dif- 
ferent stages of faith, so there are different stages of justification, and that 
James speaks of a more perfect justification than Paul in the passages in ques- 
tion, this cannot be admitted, since it contradicts the nature of divine justifica- 
tion to conceive it as advancing from an imperfect to a more and more perfect 
stage. Even the justification at the last judgment is in itself not more perfect 
than that by which God in this life absolves the believer from his sins; the dis- 
tinction consisting only in this, that by the former he obtains salvation as a 
present blessing, and that in all its fulness, which by the latter was conferred 
on him as a blessing yet future.! 

The exposition given in the above pages has shown that the idea of the word 
δικαιοῦσθαι with James is none other than what it is with Paul, but that by it 
James has in view the justification that places believers at the last judgment in 
the full enjoyment of salvation, whereas Paul denotes by it the justification that 
puts believers already in this world in a gracious relation toward God. Only 
on this supposition does James say what he designs to say; for if δικαιοῦσθαι (so 
also σώζειν, ver. 14) refers to the judgment of God still in the future for believers, 
the proof that it has épya for its essential condition effectually hits the opponent 
who thought to be able to obtain σωτηρία by an inoperative faith. — That the 
doctrine of James so understood is in agreement with that of Paul, follows from 
the following remarks:—(1) James here evidently says nothing against the 
Pauline doctrine of justification, since his ἐξ ἔργων does not refer to being placed 
in a new relation to God, of which there is no mention. ‘The inquiry, by what 
this is conditioned, is not discussed by James in his Epistle at all; yet it is to 
be observed that to him the foundation of the Christian life is πίστις, and that 
he designates the new birth (chap. i. 18) as a work of God, which only takes 


1 Tt is incorrect when Hengstenberg says: 
“Tf by faith is understood genuine living faith, 
and by works genuine works proceeding from 
faith, justification by faith and justification by 
works can be taught without contradiction; ” 
since the justification of which Paul speaks is 
the reason and not the consequence of works 
of faith: on which account even Riggenbach 
(‘On Justification,” etc., in the Stud. u. Avit., 


1868, Part II.) has not been able to approve of 
this assertion of Hengstenberg. It is also no 
less incorrect when Hengstenberg, in spite of ἐξ 
ἔργων. . - οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον, ver. 24, thinks 
that ‘in James also faith a/one is represented 
as justifying,’’ since James does not give the 
name of justification to God’s act of grace 
which is effectual in man only through faith. 


Υ CHAP. IL. 105 
place through the will of God, and indeed so that God implants the word of truth 
inman. That James in this asserts something which is not in contradiction, but 
in agreement with Paul’s doctrine of justification, requires no proof. (2) The 
doctrine of Paul concerning the future judgment of believers does not conflict 
with what James says of δικαιοῦσθαι, although he does not use that expression in 
reference to it (except in Rom. ii. 13). It is to be observed, that Paul very defi- 
nitely distinguishes the justifying act of God, by which the forgiveness of sins is 
adjudged to the believer for the sake of Christ, from the judicial act of God by 
which σωτηρία will either be.adjudged or denied to the justified. Justification (so 
called by Paul) is conditioned on the part of man only by πίστις: the future ow- 
τηρία will only be adjudged to him in whom πίστις has proved itself to be a work- 
ing principle. As, on the one hand, it is incorrect to affirm that, according to 
Paul, he only is justified by πίστις with whom it does not remain inactive; so, 
on the other hand, it is incorrect to think that according to him no reference is 
taken of ἔργα in the judgment of God.! Wiesinger, in proof that Paul denies 
the justifying (the word taken in his sense) efficacy of an inoperative faith, 
adduces the passages, Rom. viii. 4, 18, xiii. 8-10; 1 Cor. vi. 7-11, 18; Gal. v. 6, 
19-21; Eph. ii. 8-10; Col. i. 10; Tit. ii. 14; but it is, on the contrary, to be ob- 
served that in none of these passages (except Eph. ii. 8, in the words ἐστε σεσωσ- 
μένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως) is the discourse of being justified (δικαιοῦσθαι, in the sense of 
Paul). All these passages, however, prove that Paul makes the attainment 
of σωτηρία, or the future inheritance of the kingdom of God, conditioned on the 
ἔργοις of the justified. It is to be observed that in Gal. v. 6, πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης 
ἐνεργουμένη does not (as is almost universally assumed) refer to δικαιοῦσθαι, but to 
ἀπεκδέχεσθαι ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης, thus to the hope of those who are σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς 
πίστεως. Further, in 1 Cor. vi. 11, the Christians, to whom Paul says ἀπελού- 
cache, ἡγιάσθητε, ἐδικαιώθητε,2 are exhorted to consider that the ἄδικοι shall not 
inherit the βασιλεία Θεοῦ; also, in Gal. v. 25, it is indicated that the ζῆν πνεύματι, 
which is peculiar to believers, must also be a στοιχεῖν πνεύματι; and lastly, Paul, 
in 2 Cor. v. 10, says expressly that we all (that is, Christians who as such are 
δικαιωθέντες) must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, iva κομίσηται ἕκαστος 
τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθόν, εἴτε κακόν. From these passages, 
which might be greatly multiplied, it is not to be denied that Paul, as he defi- 
nitely excludes every co-operation of human works in justification,® so he no 


1 By this it is not intended to be denied that 
Paul often combines the two acts as one act of 
divine salvation, and also that he frequently re- 
fers the final salvation (not less than justifica- 


neither with Paul nor in any other passage of 
the N. T. 

3 Even with the recognition of this undeni- 
able fact, Paul’s doctrine of justification by 


tion) purely to the grace of God. The problem 
is rather this, that, on the one hand, the final 
salvation is represented as a pure act of God’s 
grace, but, on the other hand, the final judg- 
ment is as definitely represented as an act 
carried into effect κατὰ τὰ ἔργα; as by Paul, 
so in the Scriptures generally. The solution 
of this problem, however, belongs not to our 
present subject. 

2 By ἡγιάσθητε and ἐδικαιώθῃτε a change of 
man’s disposition is not in itself designated, 
but the change of his relation to God effected 
by God. Meyer in loco incorrectly gives to 
the word δικαιοῦσθαι a meaning (namely, ‘to 
be made righteous”’) which it has elsewhere 


faith is not always understood in strict pre- 
cision. This is particularly the case when it is 
said, that according to Paul faith justifies, so 
far as it is a principle of new life; whereas it 
is rather the case that, according to him, faith 
is a principle of new life, because it justifies. 
Only when this is misunderstood can it be said, 
on the supposition that Paul and James under- 
stand by δικαιοῦν the same divine act, that be- 
tween them there is no fundamental but only 
an unessential contrast. See remarks of the 
author in the Eri. Zeitschr., April number, 
1862, p. 214 f., where among other things it is 
said: **The reason of justification is not the 
ethical nature of faith, but solely and entirely 


106 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


less definitely represents the future salvation as conditioned by the practice 
of ἔργα τῆς πίστεως (see Hengstenberg, Evangel. Kirchenztg., 1866, p. 1119 ff.).} 
But if this is the case, then in reference to this point there occurs a difference 
between Paul and James, not in thought, but only in expression ; namely, Paul 
denotes by the word δικαιοῦν that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by 
God, by which the believer is placed in a new filial relation to God; whilst 
James means that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by God, by which 
he who is born again as a child of God receives the σωτηρία imparted at the judg- 
ment: but with both δικαιοῦν means ‘‘ to declare righteous,’”’ “‘to acquit,’’? but 
not ‘‘to prove one righteous,”’ or ‘to convert him into a righteous man.” So, 
also, in what both say concerning Abraham, there is no difference in sentiment; 
the only difference is that ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην and ἐδικαιώθη are considered 
by James as two points, whilst Paul considers the second to be equivalent to the 
first. 

2. If from what has been said it follows that the doctrine of James is not 
in contradiction with that of Paul, then every reason for the opinion that James 
wrote his Epistle with reference to Paul falls to the ground. The employment 
of the same expressions by both is indeed surprising, but it is to be observed 
that these expressions have their origin neither in Paul nor in James, but 
already occur in the O. T. Paul uses the expressions δικαιοῦσθαι, δικαιοσύνη, 
δικαίωσις, chiefly in a relation foreign to the O. T., to which, however, he was 
led by the words ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην. James, on the contrary, uses them not 
in the application peculiar to Paul, but in the manner in which they are used 
in the O. T. Also the reference to Abraham by James is not to be explained 
on the ground that Paul confirms his doctrine of justification by what happened 
to Abraham; for, since James designed to appeal for his assertion to an O. T. 
type, it was entirely natural that his glance should first fall on Abraham; also 
the distinction is to be observed, that James used Abraham only as an example, 
whereas Paul, as Schleiermacher correctly observes, ‘‘ referred to him his entire 
peculiar system of doctrine, whilst he would trace back to him the special cove- 
nant of the people with God.’’ —From all this it follows that James neither 
designed an attack upon the Pauline doctrine itself, for in this case he would 
have been obliged to demonstrate the necessity of ἔργα νόμοι, nor also an attack 
upon a misunderstanding of it, for then he would have been obliged to show 
that his readers could only regard themselves as δικαιωθέντες, when their faith 
was to them an impulse to the practice of good works;? ratler the Pauline doc- 
trine was unknown to him, since otherwise he would necessarily have conformed 
to Paul’s mode of representation. By this likewise the opinion is confirmed, 
that the composition of the Epistle belongs not to the later, but to the earlier 
apostolic times; see on this Sec. 4 of the Introduction, and the treatise of Weiss 
mentioned above; also his Bibl. Theol. p. 124 f. 


the merit of Christ, or Christ Himself with 
whom faith, that is, faith in Christ, places us 
in connection. We are not justified for the 
sake of faith, but through faith (διὰ τῆς πίστεως) 
Jor the sake of Christ: thus it holds good for 
the justification which is by faith alone, that 
every reference to works is entirely excluded.” 

1 The objection of Philippi, that the declara- 
tion of righteousness in the judgment takes 
place not ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, but only κατὰ τὰ ἔργα, 


is contradicted by the word of Christ, Matt. 
xii. 37. 

2 How the deductions of James are to be 
directed against a misunderstanding of the 
Pauline doctrine, if δικαιοῦσθαι has with him 
the meaning of ‘‘to be proved,” is in fact not 
to be understood, so much the less as the justi- 
fying power of faith assuredly does not depend 
on its being proved by works before men. 


CHAP. III. 107 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 8. Instead of the Rec. ἰδού, found only in some min., Griesbach has, 
after C, many min., etc., adopted ie; however, εἰ dé is to be read, with Lachm., 
Tisch., Wiesinger, De Wette, and others, after A, B, G, K, 8, many min., vss., etc. 
Not only does the preponderating weight of authorities testify for this, but also 
its difficulty. —Instead of πρὸς τὸ πείθεσθαι, Lachm. and Tisch. (approved by De 
Wette, Wiesinger, not by Bouman) have adopted εἰς τὸ π. (so B, C, 8). — Lachm. 
has retained the Ree. αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν, after B, G, K, 8, etc.; Tisch., on the contrary, 
reads ἡμῖν αὐτούς, after A, C.— Ver. 4. Instead of σκληρῶν ἀνεμων (A, G, etc.), 
Lachm. and Tisch. read ἀνέμων σκληρῶν, after B, C, K, 8, which, according to au- 
thorities, is to be considered as the correct reading. — Ver. 5. Lachm. and Tisch. 
7 read μεγάλα avyet (A, C*) instead of the Rec. μεγαλαυχεὶ (Tisch. 2); attested 
by B, C**, G, K, 8, almost all min. — Whether we are to read, with the Rec., 
ὀλίγον πῦρ, or, with Lachm. and Tisch., ἡλίκον zip, cannot with certainty be 
decided by authorities, since A*, ΟἿ, G, K, etc., are in favor of the former, and 
A**, B, Ὁ, 8, of the latter reading. The latter reading, however, merits the 
preference, as it is not to be understood how ὀλίγον, suitable for the thought, 
should be exchanged for the difficult reading ἡλίκον; without sufficient reason, 
Kern, Theile, Wiesinger, Bouman,! would retain the reading of the Rec. — 
Ver. 6. Before the second 7 γλῶσσα the Rec., after several min., etc., has οὕτως, 
which already Griesbach considered suspicious, and, after A, B, C, K, δὶ, ete., 
is according to Lachm. and Tisch. to be erased; it was evidently inserted in 
order to lighten the difficult construction; also De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, 
and others consider it spurious; Reiche decides otherwise. — After γενέσεως, 8 
only has ἡμῶν, which is evidently an interpretation. — There is great variation 
with regard to the sequence of the words δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι (thus the Rec. 
after G; retained by Tisch.); B, Ὁ, etc., read δαμάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων (Lachm.), 
and A, K, δὰ, etc., read δύναται δαμάσαι ἀνθρώπωυ. It is evidently indifferent for 
the sense. — Instead of the Rec. ἀκατάσχετον after C, G, K, ete., probably should 
be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., ἀκατάστατον, after A, B, δὲ, etc. (approved by 
Wiesinger and Lange, rejected by Reiche and Bouman). — Ver. 9. The Rec. τὸν 
Θεόν after G, K, etc., is to be changed for the better attested reading τὸν κύριον, 
after A, B, Ὁ, 8, etc., Lachm., Tisch.: the alteration is easily accounted for.? — 
Ver. 12. According to the Ree. the last clause begins with οὕτως, after C**, G, 
K, δὰ, some min. and vss., which already Griesbach considered suspicious; it is, 
according to the testimony of A, B, C, to be erased as an insertion. — The words 
which follow in the Rec. (after G, K, ete.) are οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν καὶ γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι 


1 Bouman thinks that ἡλίκον arose from the 2 Bouman erroneously thinks that Θεόν was 
following ἡλίκην; but it is more correct to as- changed for κύριον in order that a mention of 
sume that even on this account it was changed Christ might once take place. 
for the easily understood ὀλίγον. 


108 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


ὕδωρ. This reading, whose spuriousness was already recognized by Griesbach, 
is, as a correction for the sake of explanation, to be changed for οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ 
ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ; attested by A, B, C, ete., and adopted by Griesbach, Lachm., 
Tisch., and others. δὲ reads ovdé, — Ver. 13. Whether after ἐν ὑμῖν a comma is 
to be placed, with Lachm. and Buttm., or, with Tisch. and the Rec., a note of 
interrogation, see the explanation of the verse. — Ver. 14. Instead of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, 
ἐξ has the plural ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, ---- Τὰ the same MS. τῆς ἀληθείας instead of after 
ψεύδεσθε stands after κατακαυχᾶσθε. --- Ver. 16. After ἐκεῖ, § has inserted «ai, — 
Ver. 17. The καί of the Rec. between ἀδιάκριτος and ἀνυπόκριτος is, according to 
A, B, C, δὰ, etc., to be erased as an insertion; so also in ver. 18 the article τῆς 
before δικαιοσύνης, according to A, B, C, G, K, 8, ete. 


With chap. iii. James passes to the treatment of a new theme, to which 
the conduct of the Christians, to whom this Epistle was directed, likewise 
gave occasion. It is that which was already indicated by βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι 
in chap. i. 17, and by μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ in chap. i. 26. The more 
unfruitful faith was in works corresponding to it (especially the works of 
compassionate love), the more did “the loquacious teaching afd ruling of 
others ” (Wiesinger) prevail. Words had taken the place of works. This 
section, which is closely united with the preceding, treats of this; yet 
without “any hidden indication contained in it that it was the doctrine 
of faith which was an object of controversy” (De Wette); for in the 
whole Epistle there is not the slightest indication of controversies in 
the churches in question. The fault refers to the same with which Paul 
in Rom. ii. 17 ff. blames the Jews, only that with these Christians πίστις, 
which was to them something entirely external, took the place of νόμος. The 
moral relation was essentially the same. The warning (as in chap. ii. 1) 
stands first, and the reason assigned for it follows: “ Be not in great numbers 
teachers, my brethren, considering that we will receive a heavier judgment.” Cal- 
vin, Piscator, Laurentius, Baumgarten, and others arbitrarily refer this warn- 
ing to the unauthorizéd judging and condemning of each other; by this 
explanation the idea διδάσκαλοι does not receive its proper meaning. On the 
other hand, we are not to think of persons rushing into the proper munus 
docendi (Bede, Semler, Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, and 
others), but on the free teaching in the congregation which was not yet 
joined to a particular office, but appertained to every one who felt himself 
called to it. —7oAdoi belongs not to γίνεσθε (πολλοὶ γίγνεσθαι = multiplicari, 
Gen. vi. 1; Schneckenburger), but is either the subject (De Wette, Wie- 
singer, Bouman) or forms the predicate united with διδάσκαλοι. In the first 
case, however, γενέσθωσαν would more naturally stand instead of γίνεσθε ; also 
from the second construction a more important thought arises; therefore it 
is to be explained: “Be not many teachers,” that is: “Be not a multitude 
of teachers” (Lange). It is inaccurate to explain πολλοί = πάντες (Grotius) ; 
it is false to explain it = nimii in docendo (Bauingarten: “be not excessive, 
vigorous judges”). The verb γίνεσθε has here the same meaning as in chap. 
i. 22 — With εἰδότες, x.7.4., James points to the reason of μὴ... γίνεσθε; yet 
εἰδότες being closely joined to the imperative is itself hortatory: considering. 
In the phrase κρῖμα λαμβάνειν, κρίμα has in the N. T. usage undoubtedly the 


CHAP. III. 2. 109 


meaning condemnation ; comp. Matt. xxiii. 13 (Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47); 
Rom. xiii. 2; but also elsewhere the word occurs in the N. T. almost 
entirely in this meaning, which Lange incorrectly denies (see Cremer). 
Because James includes himself, many expositors have been induced to take 
κρῖμα here as vox media (so also Lange), but it is to be considered that James 
does not use this expression as if the sentence of condemnation could not be 
removed (see chap. ii. 13); only this is evident to him, that the severer 
(μεῖζον) the condemnation, so much the more difficult is it to be delivered 
from its execution. The comparative μεῖζον (not = too great, Pott) is ex- 
plained from a comparison with others who are not teachers. 

Ver. 2. The reason (γάρ) of the preceding; yet not so much of the warn- 
ing: wy... γίνεσθε (Schneckenburger), — this is conditioned by εἰδότες, x.7.A., 
—as rather of the thought μεῖζον κρῖμα ληψόμεθα ; namely, so that the first 
clause refers only to κρῖμα ληψόμεθα, and only that which follows to the idea 
μεῖζον; whilst in the expression εἴ τις, «.7.4., the idea is contained, that as οὐ 
πταίειν ἐν λόγῳ conditions τελειότης, sinful man is thus not in a position to 
bridle the tongue. Briickner incorrectly considers the clause εἴ τις, κ.τ.λ., 
as the explanatory reason of the directly preceding sentence: ‘we all offend 
frequently, fur whosoever offends not in word, he only preserves himself from 
πολλὰ πταίειν." — The words πολλὰ πταίομεν ἅπαντες are to be taken in their 
widest sense (Wiesinger, Briickner) ; by ἅπαντες (a stronger form than πάντες) 
neither the διδάσκαλοι simply are meant, nor is it = plerique (Grotius), and 
πταίειν points not expressly to errores, qui docentibus obvenire possint (Grotius), 
or to “speech which is used in teaching” (De Wette), but it comprehends 
all and every moral error of whatever kind it may be.1— πολλά is adverbial, 
as in Matt. ix. 14.— To this first thought that which follows is annexed 
ἀσυνδέτως. --- εἴ τις ; see chap. i. 5, 23, 26 = ὅστις. ---- ἐν λόγῳ is not to be limited 
to teaching proper (Pott = ἐν διδασκαλίᾳ), but is equivalent to ἐν τῷ λαλῆσαι, 
chap. i. 19; é denotes the sphere within which the οὐ πταίειν occurs; other: 
wise in chap. ii. 10. On od after εἰ, see on chap. ii. 11. — To οὗτος τέλειος 
ἀνήρ, ἐστι is to be supplied; οὗτος is emphatic; what follows δυνατὸς, «.7./., is 
in apposition to τέλ. ἀνήρ; the word ἀνῆρ is used here as in chap. i. 8. — The 
meaning is: Whosoever offends (sins) not in speech, and thus is able to 
bridle his tongue, proves himself thereby to be a perfect man who is able 
to rule also the whole body, that is, all the other members, so that it is subject 
to his will. James here places the body in opposition to the man “as a rela- 
tive independent power which offers moral resistance to the will of the Ego” 
(Wiesinger), which it is his task to bridle. The xapdia, indeed, is the fountain 
of evil deeds (Matt. xv. 19), but the lust which is rooted therein has so thor- 
oughly appropriated the members of man, and as it were fixed its dwelling in 
them (Rom. vii. 23), that they appear as lusting subjects, and may be repre- 
sented as such in lively concrete language. By such explanations as ὅλον τὸ 
σῶμα, equivalent to “the whole connection of the actions and changes of 
man” (Baumgarten), or = reliquae peccandi illecebrae (Pott), or = lota vita 


1 Briickner correctly asserts, against De that in what follows ἐν λόγῳ πταίειν is partic. 
Wette, that the subject in ἅπαντες has experi- ularly brought forward, requires for πταίειν 
enced an extension, and that the circumstance here a more universal meaning 


110 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


(Schneckenburger), the idea lying at the foundation does not receive its full 
meaning. Even the remark of De Wette, that τὸ σῶμα denotes “ not only all 
organs proper, but even the affections,” is not to be retained; on which ac- 
count Briickner adds: ‘the latter only in so far as they are expressed by the 
former.” The explanation of Lange is also arbitrary, that the body here 
denotes the organ and symbol of all other modes of human action, with the 
exception of speech. Laurentius rightly observes: nihil obstat, quo minus per 
totum corpus intelliyamus caelera corporis nostri membra: manus, pedes, etc. 

Vv. 3,4. Two comparisons by which the thought εἴ τις ἐν λόγῳ, κιτ.λ., is 
illustrated and confirmed. It is incorrect when it is assumed that “James, 
with vv. 3 and 4, will primarily explain and establish by examples the im- 
portance, maintained in ver. 2, of power over a little thing, as the tongue, 
for the government of the whole” (Wiesinger), and that the ¢ertium compara- 
tionis is “a little thing does much” (Gunkel); for neither in ver. 2 is the 
smallness of the tongue mentioned, nor in ver. 3 is the smallness of the bridle 
brought forward. The examples adduced, which are closely attached to the 
preceding, are rather designed to prove how by the mastery of the tongue that 
of the whole body is possible; it is, James will say, even as one rules the 
horse by the guidance of the bridle, and the ship by the guidance of the helm. 
Only in the second image does the smallness of that by which the steersman 
rules the great ship appear to James as something important, so that he 
dwells upon this point in what follows (so also Lange). 

Ver. 3. But if we put bridles in the mouths of horses, we turn also their whole 
body. The clause καὶ ὅλον, x.7.A., forms the apodosis to the protasis beginning 
with εἰ (Pott, Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Bouman). Many expositors in- 
correctly attach this clause to the protasis, whereby Theile regards ver. 5 as 
the apodosis belonging to it, whilst others supply a thought as the apodosis; 
according to De Wette, this thought is, that “the tongue is not so easily 
tamed as a horse,” which is wholly unsuitable.1— The particle δέ is not, 
with Theile, to be explained as closely connecting this verse to the follow- 
ing,? for here and in ver. 4 nothing else than a contrast to ver. 2 is to be 
expressed ; it is rather used here even as in chap. ii. 15, simply distinguish- 
ing the case adduced for comparison from that for the sake of which it is 
introduced (Wiesinger). By τῶν ἵππων standing first, the view is at once 
directed to the object by which the sentiment expressed is to be illustrated 
(comp. ver 4). The genitive depends not on τοὺς χαλινούς (Theile, Lange, 
and others), but on τὰ στόματα (Oecumenius, Hornejus, Pott, Gebser; Bou- 
man wavers), for on this word the emphasis rests. τοὺς χαλινούς points back 
to χαλιναγωγῆσαι, ver. 2, by which apparently this image was suggested to 
James. — On the phrase: εἰς τὰ στόματα βάλλειν, comp. in Aelian: χαλινὸν ἵππῳ 
éu3aaraew. — The words εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι ἡμῖν αὐτούς are for the purpose of ac- 


1 Bede supplies: ‘‘ quanto amplius decet, ut 2 Theile says: ‘‘Ita a difficultate linguam 
nobis ipsis frenum continentiae in ora mitta- moderandi transitus fit ad necessitatem: in 
mus;’’ Lorinus: ‘‘si hoc in equis contingit, memoriam vocatur, exigua saepe esse, quibus 
simile quid oportet circa linguam procurari;” ingentia moveantur non solum in bonam (vy. 
Tlottinger: “‘eodem modo qui linguam coer. 8, 4), sed maxime etiam in malam partem.” 


cere potest, toti corpori facile moderabitur,” 


CHAP. Il. 4, 5. 111 
centuating the governing of the horse by the bridle put into its mouth. 
The apodosis καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, «.7.A., corresponds to χαλιναγωγῆσαι καὶ ὅλον τὸ 
σῶμα, ver. 2. -- μετάγειν, in the N. T. only here and in ver. 4, is = circum- 
agere. The tertium comparationis lies in εἰς τὰ στόματα ; for, as Bengel correctly 
remarks: in ORE lingua est, and ov πταίειν ἐν λόγῳ, is identical with the bridling 
of the tongue in the mouth. 

Ver. 4. The second comparison is emphatically indicated by ἰδού. καί is 
either also or even so. Wiesinger prefers the second meaning, which cer- 
tainly gives to the thought a peculiar emphasis. The participles ὄντα... 
ἐλαυνόμενα are to be resolved by although. Both participial sentences bring 
forward the difficulty of guiding the ship, in order to cause the power of the 
small helm to be recognized. It is possible that in the second clause: καὶ 

. ἐλαυνόμενα, there is an allusion to the lusts moving man (Bede: venti 
validi . . . ipst appetitus sunt mentium), or “to the temptations (πειρασμοί) of 
the world, coming from without” (Lange). —oxAnpoc is also used of the 
wind in Proy. xxvii. 16 (so also Aelian, De Animal. v. 18, ix. 14; Dio Chry- 
sostom, iii. p. 44 C). — The verb μετάγεται united with τὰ πλοῖα is the same as 
in ver. 3. The words ὑπὸ ἐλαχίστου πηδαλίου mention by what this guidance 
takes place. On ὑπό, see chap. i. 14. By the addition of ἐλαχίστου a new 
point is introduced which is retained in what follows. The superlative is 
for the purpose of bringing more strongly forward the smallness of the 
πηδάλιον in contrast to the great ship (τηλικαῦτα ὄντα). The counterpart is 
the little tongue (ver. 5). — The addition: whithersoever the desire of the steers- 
man willeth, is not superfluous ; it expresses —in opposition to ὑπὸ ἀνέμων ἐλαυ- 
voueva —the free mastery of him who steers the ship, which he exercises over 
it by means of the helm, and corresponds to εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι, x.7.2., Ver. 3. — 
ὅπου (instead of ὅποι, which does not occur in the N. T.) is found also in the 
classics united with verbs of motion, particularly with τιθέναι, but also with 
βαίνειν. By ὁρμή is not to be understood the external impulse, or “ the press- 
ure which the steersman exercises” (Erasmus, Semler, Augusti, Stolz, Pott, 
Theile, Wiesinger), also not “ the course of the navigator kept in action by 
the helm” (Lange); by both of these interpretations a meaning is imposed 
upon the word foreign to it. It rather indicates, as in Acts xiv. 5 (see Meier 
in loco), the eager will, the desire of something ;* thus Bede, Calvin, Grotius, 
Baumgarten, Gebser, De Wette, and others. — The participle ὁ εὐθύνων indi- 
cates him who sits at the helm and directs the ship; it is thus not = ὁ 
εὐθυντήρ (Grotius, Pott, Schneckenburger). Luther correctly translates it 
according to its meaning: “ whither he wills who governs it.” ὃ 

Ver. 5. Application of the comparison, particularly of the second illus- 
tration, μικρόν. pointing back to ἐλαχίστου. --- μεγαλαυχεῖν, which expresses the 
contrast to μικρόν, is not = μεγάλα ἐργάζεσθαι (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cal- 
vin, Laurentius, Pott, Bouman, and others), for the idea of doing is precisely 
not contained in the word, but it denotes proud conduct in word and be- 
havior, which has for supposition the performance of great things, and is 


1 Sophocles, Trach. 40: κεῖνος ὅπου βέβηκεν. 8 For corresponding passages from the clas- 
2 In Plato, Phil. Ὁ. 85 D,itisusedassynony- _sics, see in Wetstein, Gebser, Theile; partic- 
mous with ἐπιθυμία. ularly Aristotle, Quaest. Mechan. il. 5. 


112 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 

6 
always used ina bad sense. This certainly does not appear to suit οὕτως; as 
in the preceding the discourse is not about talking, on which account Lange 
prefers the reading μεγάλα αὐχεῖ; but also this expression = “ boasteth great 
things,” does not exclude, but includes, that secondary meaning, for why 
would not James otherwise have written simply μεγάλα ποιεῖ ὁ But οὕτως is 
so far not unsuitable, as the performance of great things—as they are spoken 
of in the foregoing — forms the reason of the boasting of the tongue. Ona 
mere inanis jactatio it is not natural here to think. This first clause already 
points to what follows, where the destructive power of the tongue is described. 
This description begins with a figure: “What a fire kindles what a forest.” 
In justification of the reading ἡλίκον (instead of ὀλίγον), De Wette (with 
whom Briickner agrees), translating ἡλίκον rip: “what a great fire,” observes, 
“that the burning of the forest is contemplated in its whole extent.” But 
the verb ἀνάπτει, as Wiesinger correctly observes, is opposed to this explana- 
tion; also this clause forms the transition from the foregoing to what fol- 
lows, and therefore must still contain the reference to μικρόν, which certainly 
is afterwards laid aside. This does not, however, constrain us to the rejec- 
tion of the reading ἡλίκον (against Wiesinger and Bouman), since this word, 
which indeed chiefly emphasizes greatness, can also be used to give promi- 
nence to smallness; see Pape. The older expositors, according to its mean- 
ing, correctly explained the quantus of the Vulgate by quantulus; thus 
Cajetan., Paes, and others; the same explanation by Lange. If Briickner 
thinks that it is not appropriate to take ἡλίκον here in this signification, 
owing to the following ἡλίκην, it is on the contrary, to be observed that pre- 
cisely the opposition of the same word in a different signification is entirely 
in accordance with the liveliness of the sentiment. — On the use of ἡλίκος in 
the interrogative explanatory sense, see A. Buttmann, p. 217 (E. T., 253). 
Erasmus, Laurentius, Grotius, Baumgarten, Augusti, explain the word ὕλη 
by materia, lignorum congeries, as it has in Ecclus. xxviii. 10 the significa- 
tion of fuel; but the image is evidently much more lively and graphic when 
ὕλη is retained in its usual meaning: forest.} 

Ver. 6. Application of the image: Also the tongue is a fire, the world of 
unrighteousness ; the tongue sets itself among our members, as that which defileth 
the whole body and kindleth the wheel (of life) revolving from birth, and is kindled 
of hell. ΑΒ a (little) fire setteth a forest in conflagration, so also the tongue 
kindleth the whole life of man. Such is the destructive power of the tongue, 
that whosoever knows how to bridle it may with truth be called a perfect 
man (ver. 2).— Several interpreters divide the first clause: καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα 
πῦρ, ὁ κόσμοσ τῆς ἀδικίας, into two corresponding parts, supplying the idea ὑλη 
to ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας ; thus Morus: igni respondet lingua, materiae sew silvae 
respondet mundus improbus. Manifestly wholly arbitrary; rather the words 
ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας form an apposition to ἡ γλῶσσα, by which the power of the 
tongue similar to destructive fire is explained. κόσμος has here the same 
meaning as in LXX., Prov. xvii. 6: ὅλος κόσμος τῶν χρημάτων ; 5 thus the mul- 


1 Corresponding descriptions in Homer, 17. Stobacus it is said: ‘Parva facula cacumen 
xi. 155. Pindar, Pyth. iii. 66; see also Ecclus. Idae incendi potest.” 
xi, 32, Philo, De Migr. Abrah. 407 A. In 2 It is to be observed that the LXX. often 


CHAP. III. 6. 113 


- 


titude comprehending the individual: consequently ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας is the 
Sulness of unrighteousness. The tongue is so called because, as the organ of 
ὀργή, it includes a fulness (not exactly the sum total) of unrighteousness 
which from it pervades the other members (ὅλον τὸ σῶμα). Calvin correctly, 
according to the sense: acsi vocaret mare vel abyssum (Luther, inaccurately : 
“a world full of wickedness”). This is the explanation of most expositors. 
Bouman correctly explains the definite article: famosus iste mundus iniqui- 
tatis. The following are other explanations: (1) Oecumenius takes κόσμος 
= ornament, and explains: ἡ γλῶσσα κοσμεὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν διὰ τῆς τῶν ῥητόρων εὐγλώττου 
δεινότητος ; similarly Wetstein, Semler, Elsner, Rosenmiiller, Storr, Lange?! 
(Wahl is doubtful). But κόσμος never signifies in an active sense that which 
puts an ornament on another, but always the ornament itself, that where- 
with a person adorns himself (or another). (2) Bretschneider likewise 
takes the word as equivalent to ornament, but supplies ὡς, and explains: ut 
ornatus (mulierum) inhonestus sc. inquinat mentes, sic lingua deprehenditur inter 
corporis membra td quod totum corpus inquinat ; yet evidently more arbitrarily 
than the foregoing explanation. (3) Theile retains the usual meaning of 
the word world, and explains: lingua (est ignis), mundus (vero est) improbitatis, 
i.e , improbitate plenus, nimirum ob illam ipsam linguae vim; but apart from 
the inadmissible supplements rendered necessary, and the harshness con- 
tained in this combination of the genitive, this explanation is to be rejected, 
because by it the words would contain an assertion on the nature of the 
world, instead of on the nature of the tongue. (4) Estius, indeed, is right 
in his comprehension of the idea, but he arbitrarily understands it as causa- 
tive: quia (lingua) peccata omnigena parit; so also Herder: “the mainspring 
and the cause of all unrighteousness.” Gebser introduces something foreign 
into the explanation, taking κόσμος = the wicked world. Clericus, Hammond, 
Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and Hottinger, without any sufficient reason, think that 
the words are to be expunged from the text as spurious. — Whilst almost all 
expositors refer ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας to what precedes (to which, according to 
the reading of the Rec. which has οὕτως before the following ἡ γλῶσσα, it 
necessarily belongs), Tisch. has put a point after rip but not after ddixiac;? 
and Neander translates: “ As a world full of unrighteousness, the tongue is 
among our members;” so also Lange construes it. But this construction 
is not only difficult, but isolates too much the first thought ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, 
which only has a correct meaning when it is closely connected with what 
follows. — The new clause accordingly begins with ἡ γλῶσσα, and καθίσταται 
has its necessary supplement in what follows: ἡ σπιλοῦσα, x.7.A.—xabiorara 
can neither here nor in chap. iv. 4 mean i stands: the perfect only has this 
meaning, but not the present; it means: 7 sets iself, it appears (Wiesinger). 


culture, because it is that which sophistically, 
etc., gives to unrighteousness its worldly... 
and even splendid form.” But is not the idea 


translate the Hebrew NOY¥ by κόσμος ; see Gen. 
ii. 1; Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3; Isa. xxiv. 21, xl. 26. 
1 Lange, indeed, grants that κόσμος is not 


an active idea, but he yet thinks that we must 
return to the original signification of the word, 
and he then explains it: ‘the tongue is the 
form of the world, worldiiness, or worldly 


so explained taken in an active sense? 

2 Lachmann and Buttmann have, by leaving 
out the punctuation, left the pointing to the 
expositor, 


114 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


Also the explanations are false: “it is so placed” (Pott); collocata est (Beza, 
Piscator, Schneckenburger) ; “it becomes (such) ” (De Wette, appealing to 
Rom. vy. 19), and “it rules ” (Lange, appealing to Heb. viii. 3). Theile arbi- 
trarily completes the idea: haud raro. The words which follow mention 
how the tongue appears among the members — as that which defileth the whole 
body. The idea σπιλοῦν, to which certainly πῦρ is not suited, is suggested by 
the apposition ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας. Only with the following participle does 
James carry on the image of fire; it is artificial to assume in σπιλοῦν a refer- 
ence to it. Bengel: maculans, ut ignis per fumum; comp. on this passage 
“ Eccles. vy. 5. Neither the double καί (for how often the several «ai succeed each 
other in a simple copulative sense!) nor the omission of the article before 
the two participles (comp. chap. iv. 11, 14) proves that the participles which 
follow καὶ φλογίζουσα and καὶ φλογιζομένη are subordinated to σπιλοῦσα (Wie- 
singer). This construction could only be considered as correct if the two 
participles analyzed the idea σπιλοῦσα ὅλ. τ. σῶμα into its individual parts or 
confirmed it; but neither of these is the case here; they rather add to this 
idea two new points. The object τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως, belonging to φλογί- 
ζουσα, has found very different explanations. The word τροχός, according to 
its etymology, denotes something running, and, although used of other rota- 
tory orbs, as particularly of the potter’s wheel, it is especially used as a 
designation of a wheel, 1 Kings vii. 30 ff.; Ezek. i. 15, 19,20. The word 
γένεσις can here be only in the same sense as in chap. i. 23; the compound 
idea: the wheel of birth, i.e., “the wheel revolving from birth,” is a figurative 
designation of human 1116.: Thus Gebser in particular correctly explains 
it: “the wheel which is set in motion from our birth, i.e.; a poetical descrip- 
tion of life;” so also Briickner and Bouman. The explanations of Oecu- 
menius,? Calvin, Laurentius, Hornejus, Pott, Neander, amount to the same 
thing. Also Estius, Grotius, Carpzov, Michaelis, understand life, only de- 
riving this idea in a different manner. They explain τροχός (for which 
Grotius would read τρόχος) = cursus, γένεσις = natura, and cursus naturae = 
vita; by this explanation, however, the figurative nature of the expression 
suffers. Wiesinger (with whom Rauch agrees), deviating from this expla- 
nation, prefers to understand by it the whole body (ὅλον τὸ σῶμα), τροχός de- 
noting either the wheel (by which, then, τροχὸς τ. γεν. would be the revolving 
wheel of existence, of life, namely, of that to which the tongue belongs), or 
(which Wiesinger prefers) the circumference (thus τροχ. τ. γεν. would be the 
circumference of being, i.e., the circumference belonging to the tongue from 
birth, native to it). But, on the one hand, it is not to be supposed that 
James, after using the ordinary expression ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, should express the 
same thing figuratively without the least indication of the identity of mean- 
ing; and, on the other hand, it is opposed to the first interpretation that the 
body is not to be represented as a wheel, and to the second that τροχός is taken 
ina sense which it never has, for it never means the circumferenee, but at 
the most the rownd border which encloses something. Other expositors go 
‘beyond the restriction of the expression to the life of the individual, — 


‘1 Comp. Anacreon, Od. iv. 7: τροχὸς ἅρμα- 2 τροχός" ὃ Bios ws εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀνελιττόμε- 
“τος γὰρ οἷα βίοτος τρεχει κυλισθείς, vos. 


CHAP. III. 6. 115 
which is evidently required by the foregoing ὅλον τὸ cdua,—either, with 
Wolf, appealing to the Hebrew ΠΥ 5293, explaining it: indesinens 50 8- 
BESSIO HOMINUM aliorum post alios nascentium (thus Lambert, Bos, Alberti, 
Augusti, Stiudlin),! or taking τροχός = κύκλος, γένεσις = κτίσις, and accordingly 
τροχ. τ. γενέσεως = “the. circle of creation;” thus De Wette, and among the 
earlier interpreters Beza (in the edition of 1565), Crusius, Coccejus. All 
these ideas are foreign to the context. If the first explanation drags some- 
thing “foreign” into it, the second bears besides “a monstrous character” 
(Wiesinger). Still less is the explanation of Lange to be justified: “the 
wheel of the development of life, primarily of the Jewish nation, and then 
further of all mankind,” since γένεσις never denotes development of life. 


The following are other explanations which are refuted by their arbitrariness 
and rarity: (1) that of Semler, who explains it ordo generandi, according to 
the expression occurring in Plutarch: ποταμὸν τῆς γενέσεως ἐνδελεχῶς; (2) that of 
Bengel: ‘‘ rota sive sphaera superior est ipsa natura humana rationalis; gehenna 
vero est pars profundior cor; lingua in medio ex inferioribus inflammatur et 
superiora inflammat;’’ (3) that of Meyer (Observatt. ad Ep. Jacobi), who 
takes the expression = sanguinis orbis seu circulato ; lastly, (4) that of Kypke, 
who assumes that the rota poenalis is figuratively meant, cujus radiis illiga- 
bantur rei, and that accordingly φλογίζειν τὸν τροχ. τ. γενέσεως Means: augere 
vitae hujus cruciatus. 


The verb φλογίζειν is in the N. T. dz. Aey.; in the LXX. it is found in 
Exod. ix. 24; Num. xxi. 14; Ps. xcvii. 3, and other places. The figurative 
expression, which refers back to πῦρ, indicates the fatal effect which the 
tongue, from which the pollution of the whole body proceeds, exercises on 
the life of man, whilst it pervades the same by its passionate heat. James 
so presents it, that being ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας, and thus concentrating in itself 
(or in word) a fulness of unrighteousness, it forms, as it were, the axle 
round which the wheel of life moves, and by which it is set on fire. Morus 
incorrectly understands φλογίζειν “de damnis, quae lingua dat;” but the dis- 
course is not concerning the injury,which man suffers, but concerning his 
moral conduct; still less corresponding is the explanation of Michaelis, ac- 
cording to which φλογίζειν = to inflame, and that in the words of James the 
thought is contained: “lingua saepe alii excitantur, ut insano studio mala ingre- 
diantur.” The representation that the tongue defiles the whole body and 
sets the life on fire is, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, not to be justified by 
the remark that all sins have their foundation in the sins of the tongue, but 
rests on the observation that ὀργή, before it manifests itself in other ways, 
first and foremost appears in word, and thus the tongue is its most direct 
organ.? The second participial sentence states whence the tongue receives 


destructive power of the tongue, yet never as- 
serts this. The restriction to ὀργή is justified 
by the Epistle itself. See i. 19, 20, 26, ii. 9, 10, 


1 Already the Syriac version translates: 
“incendit proventus generationum nostrarum, 
quae currunt sicut rotae.”” 


2 The view that James considered the tongue 
as the source of ail sin is erroneous, since he, 
however prominently he brings forward the 


13 (the opposite ἐν πραύτητι σοφίας), 14, etc. 
According to this, in this edition the text in 
some places has been rectified. 


116 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


this destructive power (φλογίζειν), by which also the idea that it is κόσμος τῆς 
ἀδικίας finds its justification. The participle φλογιζομένη is to be retained in 
the sense of the present; it has neither the meaning of the perfect, as if the 
tongue had been only once set on fire by yeévva, nor is it, with Grotius, Mill, 
Benson, Semler, Storr, Rosenmiiller, to be taken as future, and to be referred 
to future punishment. The expression yeévva, except in the Synoptics, is 
only found here; in Matt. v. 22, xviii. 9, Mark ix. 47, it is used for a more 
exact description of the genitive τοῦ πυρός. The thought that the tongue is 
set on fire of hell is not to be explained away either by ex inferno being para- 
phrased by Theile by igne diabolico, and this by igne foedissimo ac funestissimo ; 
or by being explained with Morus: tantus est ille ignis, ut ex geennae igne 
VIDEATUR esse incensus. James means that as ἐπιθυμία (or more precisely 
épy7), Whose most direct organ is the tongue, has its origin from the devil, it 
is thus from hell (see ver. 15). Also in the O. T. the injurious effects of 
the tongue are described; see Ps. lii. 4, exx. 3, 4, Prov. xvi. 27, and other 
passages (Ecclus. v. 19 ff., xxviii. 11 ff.); yet in all these passages the dis- 
course is only on the evil which is inflicted by it on others, or on the punish- 
ment which befalls the man who misuses it. This peculiar thought of James 
has its counterpart in no passage of the O. T. 

Vv. 7, 8. In these verses the untamable power of the tongue is adduced. 
The particle yap here indicates neither simply the transition (Pott), nor is it 
to be referred to μεγαλαυχεῖ (Wiesinger), separated from it by vv. 5, 6, nor 
only to the last thought, φλογιζομένη, «.7.A. (Lange); but it is used as a logical 
particle, whilst the truth expressed in these verses substantiates the judg- 
ment contained in vv. 5,6. The relation of these two verses to each other 
is, that ver. 8 contains the principal thought, and ver. 7, on the other hand, 
a thought subordinate to it, which is only added in order to make that 
thought more emphatic. The meaning is: Whereas man tames all animals, 
yet he cannot tame the tongue. By φύσις is to be understood not the genus 
(Augusti, Gebser, Bretschneider, Schneckenburger), but the qualitas natu- 
ralis, and in such a manner that James has in view not the relation of the 
individual man to the individual beast, but the relation of human nature to 
animal nature in general, however this may differ in the different kinds of 
animals. The totality of beasts is expressed by four classes, which are 
arranged in pairs, namely, guadrupeds and birds, creeping beasts and fishes. — 
θηρία are not “beasts generally” (Pott), nor specially “wild beasts” (Eras- 
mus, Vatablus, Piscator, Baumgarten, Theile, Bouman). — τὰ ἑρπετά are 
neither terrestrial animals generally (Pott, Hottinger), nor only serpents 
(Luther, Calvin, Grotius, and others), but it is used here in the same mean- 
ing as in Gen. i. 24, 25 (LXX. ἑρπετά, as the translation of 179); see Acts 
x. 12; Rom. i. 23. — évajua (az. Aey.) denotes either fish simply, or likewise 
all worms living in the water; Luther incorrectly translates it “sea wonders,” 
and Stier “sea monsters.” There is here the same classification as in Gen. 
ix. 2 in the LXX. (which may have been before the mind of James).1 The 
dominion of human nature over the brute creation is expressed by the verb 


1 τὰ θηρία τῆς γῆς, τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὰ κινούμενα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; οἱ ἰχθύεις τῆς θαλάσσης. 


CHAP. III. 8, 9, 10. ΠῚ 
δαμάζειν (1.6.7) So to subdue, that what is subdued submits to the will of the 
subduer), because it supposes the subjection of something resisting (see 
Mark ν. 4). That James only thought on wild animals does not follow from 
this. The perfect δεδάμασται is added to the present δαμάζεται in order to 
represent the present taming as that which had already taken place in the 
past. It is incorrect to resolve δαμάζεται into δαμάζεσθαι δύναται (Hottinger, 
Schneckenburger), for it treats not only of the possibility, but of the actu- 
ality. —7rj φύσει τ. ἀνθρ. is not the dat. commodi, but the dative used with 
the passive, instead of the construction with ὑπό. φύσις has the same 
meaning as before; accordingly not ingenii solertia (Hornejus, Hottinger, 
Schneckenburger). 

Ver. 8. The chief thought is marked by δέ, as a contrast to the foregoing. 
With τὴν γλῶσσαν is meant not the tongue of others (Estius, Grotius, Horne- 
jus, Baumgarten), but one’s own tongue (according to Lange, both are indi- 
cated, the last primarily). The remark of Bengel is also unsuitable: nemo 
alius, vix ipse quisque. The words ovdelc δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαμάζειν (or more 
correctly, after B, C: οὐδεὶς δαμάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων, because the accent is on 
δαμάσαι) are to be understood in all their sharpness; the weakening comple- 
tion of the Schol. in Matthaei: εὐκόλως δηλαδὴ καὶ ἄνευ πόνου, is false. By this 
thought, what was said in ver. 2 now receives its full light. The moral 
earnestness of the author urges him at the close to the exclamation: ἀκατά- 
στατον κακόν, k.7.2..; hence the independent form of this addition (see Winer, 
p. 471 [E. T., 532]). By ἀκατάστατον (unsteady, restless, see chap. i. 8) the 
unrest of the passions is indicated, not simply with reference to what fol- 
lows, unsteadfastness (De Wette).!_ This reading is to be preferred to that of 
the Rec. ἀκατάσχετον (not to be tamed), “because it adds a new idea after 
οὐδεὶς δαμάσαι δυν. ἀνθρ.᾽ (Wiesinger). — The image of the poisonous serpent 
lies at the foundation of the second exclamation: μεστὴ ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου ; comp. 
Pa ex 4. 

Vv. 9, 10, are closely connected with the foregoing; but not as if “the 
unsteadfastness of the tongue is further described” (De Wette), nor as if 
the duplicity of the tongue is added as a new point (Lange), but for the 
purpose of prominently showing how the tongue, although it praises God, 
yet proves itself to be an ἀκατάστατον κάκον, μεστὴ τοῦ θανατ. It is to be ob- 
served that this expression, as the first person plural shows, refers to Chris- 
tians among whom the εὐλογεῖν τὸν κύριον occurs. James does not hesitate to 
include himself, knowing that naturally he was entirely the same as others.? 
James first places beside each other, by a simple copulative conjunction, the 
two contradictory acts which man performs by the tongue, namely, the εὑλο- 

The preposition ἐν is instru- 
By the repetition of ἐν αὐτῇ in 


yeiv τὸν κύριον and the καταρᾶσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. 
mental, as in Luke xxii. 29 and elsewhere. 


the representative of his people in the name of 
the guilty people.”” But both suppositions are 


1 Comp. Hermas, Past. ii. Mand. 2: πονηρὸν 
πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ καταλαλία, καὶ ἀκατάστατον δαι- 


μόνιον. 

2 Lange finds a difficulty in James includ- 
ing himself, ‘*‘ which is to be solved either by 
taking the second clause as a question expres- 
sive of surprise, or by hearing James speak as 


equally impossible; the context contradicts the 
first, and the fact that James could have no 
reason to consider himself as the representa- 
tive of the Jewish people contradicts the 
second. 


118 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


the second clause, the antithesis is yet more strongly marked. εὐλογεῖν and 
καταρᾶσθαι are correlate expressions, since the former, as the translation of 
the Hebrew 313, has properly the meaning “to bless;” in reference to God, 
as here, it means /audibus celebrare, to praise; comp. Ps. exlv. 21, and other 
passages. — The combination of τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα (instead of the Rec. τὸν 
Θεὸν κ. 7.) aS a designation of God (for by κύριος is not here to be understood 
Christ) is unusual; comp. chap. i. 27. This twofold name designates God 
on the side of His power and on the side of His love (comp. Matt. xi. 25). 
—In the second clause the important description: τοὺς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν Θεοῦ yeyo- 
vorac, is annexed to τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, by which the contradiction of the action 
described still more pointedly appears. The thought and expression agree 
with Gen. i. 26. Also, according to this, sinful man is still a being created 
after the image of God. Were the expression merely to be referred to what 
man originally was, but which he has ceased to be, the point of James’s say- 
ing would be broken. Bengel correctly observes: remanet nobilitas INDELE- 
vitis. Benson, Pott, Gebser, and Semler arbitrarily restrict the contents of 
this verse to the conduct of those who set themselves up as teachers. 

Ver. 10. First a repetition of the saying in brief expressive combination, 
by which the accent is placed on αὐτοῦ. With the words οὐ χρὴ ταῦτα οὕτως 
γίνεσθαι, James adds the condemnation of the conduct described. — The im- 
personal verb χρῇ is in the N. T. dz. Aey.; the usual word is dei, from which 
it does not differ in meaning. ---- ταῦτα οὕτως]. The union of these two words 
serves for the sharpening of the idea; ταῦτα designates the contents; οὕτως, 
the form of the action; incorrectly, Bengel: ταῦτα bona; οὕτω adjunctis malis. * 

Ver. 11. ‘Illustration of the unnaturalness of the conduct mentioned by 
an image taken from nature: Does the fountain from the same hole send forth 
the sweet and the bitter? —% πηγῆ]. The article is not here for the sake of 
liveliness (Schneckenburger : articulus fontem quasi ante oculos pingit), but is 
used because πηγῇ is generically considered. — ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς Orie]. ὀπή, the hol- 
low, Heb. xi. 38, Exod. xxxiii. 22, Obad. ver. 3, is here the hole from which 
the water of the fountain streams forth. ἢ πηγῇ refers to man; 7 ὀπή, to the 
mouth. The chief accent is on αὐτῆς, which points back to ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόμα- 
τος, ver. 10. — βρύειν, an Gr. Aey., properly to sprout forth, then to overflow, 
is here used transitively, to cause to flow forth. — τὸ γλυκύ and τὸ πικρόν indi- 
cate, indeed, the two different kinds of water, yet linguistically τὸ ὕδωρ is not 
to be supplied; the former refers to εὐλογεῖν, and the latter to καταρᾶσθαι. 
With this verse James says only that happens not in nature, which occurs 
in the case of man, out of whose mouth proceed blessing and cursing. The 
following verse first expresses the impossibility. 

Ver. 12. This verse shows, by examples taken from nature, that from 
one principle opposite things cannot be produced, but that any cause can 
only bring forth that which corresponds to its nature. Semler incorrectly 
paraphrases the first question: μὴ δύναται συκὴ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι: an fieri potest, ut 


1 Semler’s view is very strange: ‘‘hi inter pression chiefly to Christians, and specially 
publicas Dei laudes, etiam exsecrationes et to Jewish Christians, ‘‘in whom the likeness 
tristia omnia praeibant in Romanis!” It is of God, that is, the actuality and visibility of 
equally a mistake when Lange refers the ex- the image, has re-appeared.” 


CHAP. III. 18. 119 
Jicus, cujus est DULCIS natura, producat AMARAS oleas ; for that here the con- 
trast of sweet and bitter (which only the last clause of the verse resumes) is 
not designed to be expressed, is evident from what immediately follows: ἢ 
ἄμπελος σῦκα, Where James would otherwise have mentioned the olive instead 
of the vine. The idea is, rather, that nothing can bring forth that which is 
not corresponding to its nature. Consequently the opinion of De Wette, 
that here thistles (according to Matt. vii. 16), or something similar, instead 
of ἄμπελος, would be more appropriate, is incorrect. — ΤῸ the question follows 
as its conclusion the negative clause: οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ, Which is 
so construed as if the former sentence, not only in meaning, but also in form, 
was a negative one; οὔτε (δὲ : οὐδέ) and the omission of δύναται are thus to be 
explained.? — ἁλυκόν is the subject, and γλυκὺ ὕδωρ the object; ποιῆσαι is used 
in the same signification as before; thus: Nor can bitter bring forth sweet 
walter. The opposite ideas ἁλυκόν and γλυκύ are emphatically placed beside 
each other. James hereby indicates, that if from one mouth the bitter 
(namely, the κατάρα) and also the sweet (namely, the εὐλογία) proceed, this is 
not only morally reprehensible, to which ver. 10 points, but is something 
impossible ; accordingly, the person who curses man, who is made after the 
image of God, cannot also bless (praise) God, and that thus, if the mouth 
yet express both, the εὐλογεῖν can only be mere seeming and hypocrisy 
(Lange).8 

Ver. 13. With this verse apparently begins a new section, which, how- 
ever, stands in close connection with the warning in ver. 1, whilst the true 
wisdom is here contrasted with the false wisdom of which the readers boasted, 
and by which they considered themselves qualified to teach. Also here in 
the words, τίς συφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν ὑμῖν, the chief point is again placed at the 
beginning. These words are usually understood as a direct question (‘Tisch- 
endorf and Winer, p. 152 [E. T., 169]); on the other hand, Lachmann 
has only placed. a comma after ὑμῖν, which is approved by Al. Buttmann 
(p. 217 [E. T., 252]); an inversio structurae then here takes place; whilst 
“the direct interrogative form, owing to the construction which follows, 
passed naturally over into the meaning of the kindred relative clause.” 
Certainly in the N. T. the direct question is frequently used instead of the 
indirect, indeed instead of the relative pronoun; also in the usual meaning 
“the disruption of the clauses, as well as the asyndetic transition to δειξάτω 
without any subject,” is surprising. But, on the other hand, the discourse 


1 Comp. Arrian, Epikt. ii. 20: πῶς yap δύνα- 
Tat ἄμπελος μὴ ἀμπελικῶς κινεῖσθαι ἀλλ᾽ ἐλαϊκῶς, 
ἣ ἐλαία πάλιν μὴ ἐλαϊκῶς ἀλλ᾽ ἀμπελικῶς ; ἀμή- 
χανον, ἀδιανόητον ; comp. also Plut., De Trang. 
An. p. 472 E. 

2 Buttmann (p. 315 [E. T., 367]), following 
Lachmann, prae/. p. xliv., assumes ἃ corrup- 
tion of the passage. 

8 Gunkel incorrectly thinks that ver. 12 
only discloses the unnaturalness of the con- 
duct denounced in ver. 10, for μὴ δύναται evi- 
dently expresses impossibility. It is also to be 
observed, that in the last clause of ver. 12 


ἁλυκόν (ὕδωρ) is considered as the fountain 
which cannot bring forth γλυκὺ ὕδωρ, and ac- 
cordingly points to the bitter disposition, from 
which only that which is bitter (namely, the 
bitter κατάρα), but not that which is sweet 
(namely, the εὐλογία), can proceed. Lange 
correctly observes, “‘ that the multiplying of ex- 
amples has the effect of illustrating the general 
application of the law of life here laid down;” 
but he strangely supposes that ‘ the individual 
examples have a symbolical meaning;” the 
fig-tree, the symbol of a luxurious natural life; 
the olives, the symbols of spiritual life, etc. 


120 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


by the direct question evidently gains in liveliness, as it is, moreover, peculiar 
to the diction of James; see, however, Ecclus. vi. 34, to which Schnecken- 
burger appeals in support of the incorrect opinion that ric is here the indefi- 
nite pronoun. — σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων] The same combination of these two 
words is found in Deut. i. 18, iv. 6, LXX., as the translation of the Hebrew’ 
1.32} DIN; comp. also Hos. xiv. 9. If James here considered these two 
synonymous ideas as different, σοφός is to be referred to the general, and 
ἐπιστήμων to the particular. Wiesinger refers the former to the intelligence, 
and the latter to the practical insight into the correct judgment of any given 
case; others differently. — That whosoever is actually wise is to show it by 
action, is the chief thought of the following sentence. The construction of 
δειξάτω With ἐκ and the object following on it, reminds us of chap. ii. 18: 
δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πῖστιν, but the relation is not entirely the same. In 
that passage πίστις is the invisible, which is to manifest itself as the visible 
by ἔργα; but here both ἡ καλὴ ἀναστροφῆ and τὰ ἔργα αὐτοὺ are visible; the for- 
mer is the general, the latter is the particular, which as individual special 
manifestations proceed from it. The verb δείκνυμι means here, as there, not 
to prove or demonstrate, but to show. The addition ἐν πραύτητι ---- which is to 
be connected neither with τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ nor with τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς, forming 
one idea, but belongs to δειξάτω, more exactly defined by ἐκ τῆς... αὐτοῦ --- 
has the principal accent, as πραύτης σοφίας, i.e., the meekness springing from 
wisdom, and therefore peculiar to it (opposite of ὀργῇ), is the necessary con- 
dition under which the showing forth of works out of a good conversation 
alone is possible. The mode in which the individual ideas of the sentence 
are united together is certainly somewhat surprising, but it is explainable 
from the fact that James placed together all the points which occurred to 
him as briefly as possible. James might have put τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ as the 
object belonging to δειξάτω; but instead of this he puts τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, in con- 
formity with the importance which works have to him, in which as faith 
(ii. 10) so also wisdom manifests itself. He then makes the idea σοφία to 
follow in the adverbial addition ἐν πραύτητι σοφίας. The sentence might also 
be divided by a point after ἀναστροφῆς ; then the first clause would mean: let 
him show it out of a good conversation; and the second clause might either be 
taken as an addition dependent on δειξάτω (so Neander: “works performed 
in meekness suitable to wisdom”), or a verb would have to be supplied. 
However, the detachment of the second clause decides against this construc- 
tion. ὡς σοφοῦ is not, with Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, to be sup- 
plied to αὐτοῦ, as the reference to wisdom is contained in the additional 
clause; but also αὐτοῦ must not be referred to σοφός (his works, that is, of 
the wise man), but it refers to the subject contained in δειξάτω (thus Lange 
and Briickner). The whole idea πραὕτης σοφίας is neither to be resolved into 
πραεῖα σοφία (Beza, Grotius, Baumgarten, Semler, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneck- 
enburger), nor into πραὕτης σοφῆ (Laurentius), but to be explained: “the 
meekness which is proper to wisdom, and proceeds from it” (Wiesinger), or 
“in which σοφία evidences itself” (Lange).1 With the emphasis on πραὕτης 


Γ 
1 Luther inaccurately translates the passage: ‘‘ who shows with his good conversation his 
works in meekness and wisdom.” 


CHAP. III. 14, 15. 121 


James passes on to βραδὺς εἰς ὀργῆν (chap. i. 29), of which what follows is a 
further explication. 

Ver. 14. As meekness belongs to wisdom, so he who has in his heart 
ζῆλος πικρός and ἐριθεία boasts of wisdom without any right. As this was the 
case with his readers, James now directly addresses them: εἰ dé . . ἔχετε]. 
To ζῆλος, zeal, — which is here, as frequently, used in a bad sense, —is added 
the adjective πικρός for the sake of strengthening it, perhaps with reference 
to vv. 11 and 12 (Grotius, Pott, Gebser).—épifeia has in the N. T. the 
meaning controversial spirit, or, more definitely, partisanship ; comp. Rom. 
ii. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 20 (see Meyer on both passages); Gal. ν. 20; Phil. i. 17, 
ii. 3; in 2 Cor. xii. 20 and Gal. v. 20, Gao and θυμοί are united together as 
plurals. — ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν], in contrast with the word of his readers, boast- 
ing of their wisdom. —In the apodosis: μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς 
ἀληθείας, neither the first nor the second verb is to be converted into a parti- 
ciple; certainly xara in the first verb refers to κατὰ τῆς ἀληθ., and so far already 
contains the idea of lying, but James designed prominently to bring forward 
this, and therefore he adds καὶ ψεύδεσθε to κατακαυχᾶσθε. On κατακαυχᾶσθε, comp. 
chap. ii. 13 (see Winer, p. 417 [E. T., 470, note 3]). In κατακαυχᾶσθε the 
reference is to others, in ψεύδεσθε to one’s own conscience (Lange). In order 
to avoid the tautology in ψεύδεσθε and κατὰ τ. ἀληθείας, Wiesinger understands 
by ἀληθεία “truth in an objective Christian sense—the Christian truth, by 
the possession of which they fancied themselves σοφοί. } But, on the con- 
trary, it is to be considered that that which, logically considered, appears as 
mere tautology, receives another import, when not only the understanding 
but also the disposition is recognized as a factor of the construction; so it is 
here.? 

Ver. 15. The character of the σοφία from which bitter zeal and partisan- 
ship proceed. — οὐκ ἔστιν αὑτη ἡ σοφία]. αὕτη is not to be separated from ἢ σοφία, 
but forms along with it the subject. Luther incorrectly translates: “for 
this is not the wisdom,” ete. By αὕτη ἡ σοφία is meant that wisdom by which 
man has ζῆλον πικρόν in his heart, or that from which it springs; the predi- 
cate to it is: οὐκ ἐστιν ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη. ---- οὐκ ἔστιν emphatically precedes, 
and the participle takes the place of ain adjective (De Wette, Wiesinger, 
Winer, p. 313 [E. T., 350]). Gebser, Pott, Schneckenburger, incorrectly 
explain ἐστιν κατερχομένη = κατέρχεται. On the idea ἄνωθεν xatepy., comp. chap. 
i. 17. — As an ungodly wisdom it is characterized by three adjectives which 
form a climax: ἐπίγειος, ψυχικῆ, δαιμονιώδης. ---- ἐπίγειος expresses the sharpest 
contrast to ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, that wisdom being designated as such which 
belongs not to heaven, but to earth. That it is sinful (“taking root ina 
whole life of sin,” Kern, Wiesinger) is not yet expressed. James calls it 
ψυχικῆ, inasmuch as it belongs not to the πνεῦμα, but, in contrast to it, to the 
earthly life of the soul; see Meyer on 1 Cor. ii. 14, and author’s explanation 
of Jude 19. These two first ideas are abstractly not of an ethical character, 
but they become so by being considered in contrast to the heavenly and the 


1 According to Lange, the theocratic truth 9 Compare, moreover, Isocrates, De Pace, 
is to be understood which the Jewish zealots Ῥ. 165: διαψεύδεσθαι τῆς ἀληθείας, 
professed to protect. 


122 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 

spiritual. It is otherwise with the third idea: δαιμονιώδης. This word (ἅπ, 
Aey..) = devilish, betokens both the origin and the nature, and is to be taken 
not in a figurative, but in its literal sense; comp. ver. 6, chap. iv. 7; incor- 
rectly, Hottinger: impuro genio magis quam homine digna.1 

Ver. 16. Reason of the judgment expressed in ver. 15. With the intro- 
ductory words: ὅπου γὰρ ζῆλος καὶ ἐριθεία, James points back to ver. 14; with 
the following words: ἐκεὶ, «.r.A., he names the fruit of ζῆλος and ἐριθεία ; these 
are ἀκαταστασία and πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα; ἀκαταστασία is uproar, disorder.2 An 
uproarious, disorderly nature proceeds not from God: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας 
ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλ᾽ εἰρήνης, 1 Cor. xiv. 33. — To this special idea, which is particularly 
brought forward on account of the condition of those to whom James writes, 
the general idea: every evil deed, is added, in order to lay stress on the fact 
that zeal and partisanship bring along with them the corruption of the whole 
moral life. Of a wisdom which effects this, that must naturally hold good 
which is said of it in ver. 15. — The supposition of Kern,’ to which De Wette 
assents, that the here presupposed controversies between Jewish and Gentile 
Christians are alluded to, is properly rejected by Briickner. 

Ver. 17. The character of the true wisdom, which (in contrast to ver. 15) 
is designated as.7 ἄνωθεν σοφία). Comp. with this expression, Prov. ii. 6; Wisd. 
of Sol. vii. 25,26; Philo, De Profug., p. 571: σοφία ἄνωθεν ὀμιβρηθεῖσα ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ; 
De Nom. Mut.: οὐράνιος σοφία. ---- πρῶτον μὲν ἁγνῆ ἐστιν]. By πρῶτον μέν this char- 
acteristic is distinguished from the rest, which are introduced by ἔπειτα, be- 
cause it belongs to its nature, “designates its internal quality” (Kern). It 
is ἁγνῆ, i.€., καθαρὰ καὶ ἀρυπαρός, μηδενὸς τῶν σαρκικῶν ἀντεχομένη (Oecumenius) ; 
thus free from all impurity. Lange explains ἁγνῆ by consecrated, incorrectly 
according to N. T. usage; even in the classics, the reference to the gods suf- 
ficiently often steps into the background. —In the series of characteristics 
following after éxera, which describe σοφία according to its manifestations 
(Kern), the first three are named which indicate the contrasts to ζῆλος and 
ἐριθεία: eipnvixh, peaceful (comp. εἰρηνοποιός, Matt. v. 9): ἐπιεικῆς, fair, mild ; 
see on 1 Tim. iii. 3 (not = yielding): εὐπειθῆς, am. Aey. (Opposite ἀπειθῆς, Tit. 
111. 5): easy to persuade, that is, pliant, not contending in party strife. — 
Then follows μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν, by which it is described as rich 
in active love: ἐλέους is particularly mentioned, because compassion is the 
most direct proof of love; comp. chap. i. 27, ii. 13; καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν forms 
the contrast to πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα. --- The series closes with two words — united 
by similarity of sound — ἀδιάκριτος, ἀνυπόκριτος, Which express the contrast to 
every thing of an uncertain and hypocritical nature. ἀδιάκριτος is differently 
explained according to the different meanings of the root διακρίνεσθαι : Luther 
renders it impartial; Lorinus, Hornejus, Grotius (“sine partitione, nempe ini- 


1 The explanation of Hornejus contains 
arbitrary statements: ‘‘ ¢errena, quia avariliae 
dedita est, quae operibus terrenis inhiat; ani- 
malis, quia ad animi lubidines accommodatur; 
daemoniaca, quod ambitioni et superbiae ser- 
vit, quae propria diaboli vitia sunt;’? and 
equally so that of Lange, who finds here char- 
acterized ‘‘ Judaistic and Ebionite zealotiem,” 


and refers ἐπιγ. to *‘ the chiliastic claims to the 
dominion of the earth.”’ Without any justifi- 
cation, Schwegler finds here an allusion to the 
wisdom of the Gnostics. 

2 Comp. Prov. xxvi. 28; στόμα ἄστεγον ποιεῖ 
ἀκαταστασίας. 


8 Τὴν. Zeitschr., 1835, ii. 59. 


CHAP. III. 18. 123 


qua”), Baumgarten, Estius, Schulthess, Hottinger, Kern, Schneckenburger, 
Lange (“not separatistic, not sectarian”), and others understand it in the 
same sense; Beza explains it by “quae non discernit homines;” similarly 
Gebser undivided, that is, those who have the true wisdom do not separate 
from each other; the explanation of Pott: pacificus, agrees with this; the 
Vulgate, on the other hand, renders it non judicans ; and Semler: nec temere 
judicans de aliis Christianis, qui suo more vivunt. It is best to start from the 
meaning of διακρίνεσθαι as it occurs in the N. T., to doubt, and accordingly, 
with De Wette and Wiesinger, to take ἀδιάκριτος = expers omnis cujuscunque 
ambiguitatis et dubitationis (similarly Wetstein = non duplex). ἀνυπώκριτος is 
unhypocritical, upright; see Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6. — These two eharac- 
teristics are also added with special reference to the state of things among 
the readers. On ἀδιάκριτος, see chap. i. 6-8, ii. 4; on ἀνυπόκριτος, chap. 1. 22, 
26, ii. 1.— All the characteristics are attributed to true wisdom from the 
effects which it produces among those who are partakers of it; since it makes 
them pure, peaceable, etc. ; the virtues of which it is the source belong to it. 

Ver. 18. As in ver. 16 the fruit of ζῆλος, and thus of false wisdom on 
which it is founded, is named, so in this verse is the fruit of true wisdom, 
which is εἰρηνικῆ. ---- καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης... σπείρεται is a pregnant expression 
for: the seed, which yields the fruit of righteousness, is sown (Wiesinger, Bou- 
man, Lange). δικαιοσύνη is not justification (Gebser, Schneckenburger), but 
righteousness or uprightness. The genitive is that of apposition, and announces 
wherein the καρπός consists. This καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης forms the antithesis to 
ἀκαταστασία καὶ πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα, ver. 16. δικαιοσύνη is by various expositors 
incorrectly referred to the future life. — σπείρεται is to be retained in its 
literal meaning, from which there is no reason to depart, when the preg- 
nant form of the expression is kept in view. Briickner converts the idea 
without justification into that of dispersing, i.e., of profuse spending; Pott 
falsely explains σπείρεται by dei σπείρεσθαι. The sower is not to be considered 
as God (Brickner), for from the whole context the discourse is not concern- 
ing the conduct of God, but of the Christian. The addition ἐν εἰρήνῃ is not 
to be combined with καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης (Rauch) or with δικαιοσύνης (Kern: 
righteousness before God, which manifests itself in peace with God) as one 
idea, but it belongs to the verb, and announces the condition by which only 
the seed sown yields the fruits of righteousness; it is in antithesis to ζῆλος 
καὶ épipeia, ver. 16. — De Wette incorrectly takes ἐν εἰρήνῃ = εἰς εἰρήνην, in hope 
of peace. —roig ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην (= εἰρηνοποιοῖς, Matt. v. 9) is either the dativus 
actionis (Wiesinger, De Wette, formerly in this commentary; Lange uncer- 
tainly) announcing who are the sowers, or dativus commodi (Briickner, Bou- 
man) announcing for whose use the καρπὸς δικ. is sown; in the latter case the 
ποιοῦντες εἰρήνην are likewise to be considered as sowers (De Wette considers 
it possible that the dativus commodi may by its importance have supplanted 


1 The same signification is also adopted by conflicting doubts. James’s meaning is hardly 
Neander, when he says, having man in view: to be described in one word. The notion of 
‘‘ James requires inner unity of soul, assured impartiality or simplicity is most in accordance 
conviction, so that the soul be not driven to with it.” 
and fro by extraneous considerations, and by 


124 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


ὑπὸ τῶν, κιτ.λ.).. The latter explanation is more corresponding to the context, 
as it is already indicated in ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται that the sowing can only be by 
such as are in possession of σοφία εἰρηνικῆ, and it was particularly brought 
forward that the righteousness springing from the seed is only imparted to 
those who make peace. Accordingly, the meaning of the sententious expres- 
sion is: that the seed of righteousness sown in peace yields righteousness 
only to the peaceable. This explanation agrees in essentials with that of 
Wiesinger and Bouman, also of Lange, who, however, blends with it some- 
thing foreign to it, and thinks on the future harvest of righteousness. De- 
viating from this, De Wette renders it: “The fruit (conduct, moral action) 
of righteousness is in hope of peace, as the seed of the heavenly harvest sown 
by them who practise peace.” Brickner: “The fruit (the produce) of right- 
eousness is in peace dispersed (namely, by God) for them who ‘practise 
peace.” Kern: “That which springs up for the peaceable as the fruit of 
their sowing, that is, of their peaceful conduct, is righteousness before God, 
which manifests itself in peace with God.” 


CHAP. IV. 125 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 1. Before μάχαι, πόθεν is to be repeated, after A, B, Ὁ, &, etc. (Lachm., 
Tisch.). — Ver. 2. After καὶ πολεμεῖτε, οὐκ ἔχετε is to be read, according to almost 
all testimonies (A, B, G, K, etc.); only a few min. insert dé (the reading of Rec.); 
several others (C, &, etc.) read καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε; recommended by Griesbach, guar- 
anteed by Reiche; the insertion of the particle is explained from endeavoring 
more closely to connect the following with what goes before. — Ver. 4. Instead 
of the Rec. μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες, after G, K, etc., A, B, several vss., Bede, have 
only μοιχαλίδες (Lachm., Tisch.); δὲ, pr., read only μοιχαλίδες, but corrected μοιχοὶ 
καὶ μοιχαλ. Theile, Lange, Briickner (also Reiche) correctly consider the simple 
feminine as the original reading; otherwise De Wette, Bouman, and others. — 
Tisch. 7 remarks: ‘“‘loco identidem considerato non possum quin teneam etiam- 
num lectionem jam in ed. anni 1841 a me defensam ;”’ see on this the exposition. 
& has a τούτου after κόσμου, and instead of the genitive τοῦ Θεοῦ the dative τῷ Θεῷ, 
— Ver. 5. On the pointing of this verse, see exposition. — Instead of the Rec. 
κατῴκησεν, after G, K, all min., vss., Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede (Tisch.), 
Lachm. has, after A, B, &, etc., adopted κατῴκισεν. --- Ver. 7. A, B, δὲ, very 
many min., etc., have, after ἀντίστητε, the particle δέ (Lachm.), which is want- 
ing in G, K, many min., etc. (Rec., Tisch.); probably the δέ was omitted to give 
to the sentence an independent form; so also Lange; Bouman otherwise: ‘‘ δέ 
Sulciendae orationis caussa inculcatum est.’? — Ver. 10. The article τοῦ is to be 
omitted before κυρίου, according to the testimony of A, B, K, &, etc. — Ver. 11. 
Instead of καὶ κρίνων, Rec. after G, K (Reiche, Bouman), etc., is, with Lachm. 
and Tisch., to be read ἢ κρίνων, according to the testimony of A, B, several min., 
vss., etc. — Ver. 12. After A, B, 8, many min., almost all vss., the words καὶ 
κρίτης are, with Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., etc., to be added to ὁ νομοθέτης: they 
are wanting in the Rec. (after G, K, etc.); so also, according to the testimony 
of almost all authorities, the particle δέ is to be added after od. — Instead of the 
Ree. ὃς κρίνεις, after G, K, etc. (Bouman), ὁ κρίνων is, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
to be read, after A, B, δὲ, several min.; also recommended by Griesbach; and 
instead of the Rec. τὸν ἕτερον, likewise with the same editors, τὸν πλησίον is to be 
read, after A, B, 8, etc. — Ver. 13. The Elz. ed. reads σήμερον ἢ αὔριον (thus in 
B, δὲ, Lachm.); but A, G, K, very many min., etc., have the reading adopted 
by Tisch.: σῆμ. καὶ αὔριον, which must be considered genuine, as ἤ appears to be 
a correction for the sake of simplification. — The Ree. (ed. Steph.) has the con- 
junctives πορευσώμεθα, ποιήσωμεν, ἐμπορευσώμεθα, κερδήσωμεν, after G, K, several 
min., etc. In A the two first verbs are in the conjunctive; in δὲ, only the first 
verb, the others in the indicative; B, very many min., Vulg., and other vss., 
have only the indicative; so Lachm. and Tisch. The conjuctive appears to be 
a correction. — ἕνα, following ἐνιαυτόν, is omitted by Lachm.; the omission is, 
however, too slightly attested by B, 8, Vulg., etc., and, besides, is easily ex- 
plained as the statement of time here expressed by ἕνα appeared unsuitable. — 
Ver. 14. Before τῆς αὔριον Tisch. reads, after G, K, δὲ, the article τό (Rec.); 


126 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


Lachm., after A, τά; Buttmann, after B, has omitted the article; he has also 
omitted the words γάρ and ἡ after ποία, according to his statement after B (which 
Tisch. has not remarked), so that his reading is: οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τῆς αὔριον 
ποία ζωὴ ὑμῶν; see exposition. — After ἀτμίς Lachm., according to A, Vulg., has 
ἢ omitted the particle γάρ; it is, however, probably genuine, and only removed 
from the text as interrupting the sense. — Instead of the Rec. ἐστίν (after G, etc.), 
which is defended by Reiche and Bouman, Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly 
adopted ἐστε: attested by A, B, K, very many min.; the change into ἐστίν is 
easily explained. In τὲ the words ἀτμὶς γάρ ἔστε are entirely wanting. — The 
Ree. ἔπειτα δέ is a correction of the more difficult ἔπειτα καί, attested by A, B, K, 
δὲ, etc.; G has ἔπειτα δὲ xai.— Ver. 15. Buttmann reads θέλῃ instead of θελήσῃ, 
against the testimony of all authorities. — The indicative ζήσομεν . . . ποιήσομεν 
(Lachm., Tisch., after A, B, δὰ, etc.) is to be preferred to the Rec. ζήσωμεν... 
ποιῆσωμεν (after G, K, etc.), not only according to authorities, but on account of 
the thought (Wiesinger, Lange). In some MSS. and vss. ζήσωμεν... ποιῆσομεν 
is found; this reading is incorrectly defended by Fritzsche (Leipz. Lit. Z., and 
Winer and Engelhardt’s Neues Krit. Journ., V., 1826), Theile, Reiche, Bou- 
man, and others; Winer, p. 256 (E. T., 357), prefers to read both times the 
conjunctive; see exposition. — Ver. 16. Instead of καυχᾶσθε, § alone has κατα- 
καυχᾶσθε. ---- Instead of the form ἀλαζονείαις (B**, K, Lachm., Tisch., 2, Buttm.), 
Tisch. 7 has adopted the form ὠλαζονίαις (A, B*, 6). 


Ver. 1. The section beginning with this verse is in close connection with 
what goes before, pointing to the internal reason of the disorders in the con- 
gregations referred to. The sudden transition is to be observed from the 
sentiment directly before expressed, that righteousness prospers only in 
peace, to the impressive question: πόθεν πόλεμοι, x.7.A.. an answer to which 
follows in a second question “appealing to the conscience of the readers” 
(Wiesinger). — πόλεμοι... μάχαι]. Synonymous terms, only to be distin- 
guished by the first denoting the general condition, and by the second the 
single phenomena (Wiesinger, Lange, Bouman: πόλεμος = vehementior dimi- ἡ 
catio, μάχη = minus aperta concertatio); correctly, Laurentius: non loquitur 
apostolus de bellis et caedibus, sed de mutuis dissidiis, litibus, jurgiis et contentioni- 
bus. Several expositors, as Pott, Schulthess, Schneckenburger, arbitrarily 
limit these πόλεμοι to contentions between teachers; according to De Wette 
and Wiesinger, contentions concerning meum and tuum are to be understood; 
but in what follows the object is not stated, but the cause of the contentions 
and dissensions among the readers.1— The repetition of πόθεν is explained 
from the liveliness of the emotion with which James speaks. —év ὑμῖν, among 
you. —The demonstrative οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν emphatically points to what follows; 
Bouman: graphica rei significatae est informatio, qua primum intento tanquam 
digito monstrantur, deinde diserte nominantur ai ἡδοναί ; Michaelis incorrectly 
assumes this as a separate question = οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, John xviii. 36. 
By ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν the internal reason of these dissensions is disclosed. 
ἡδοναί is here by metonymy = ἐπιθυμίαι; they are lusts directed to earthly 
riches; not “a life of sensual indulgence as realized lusts” (Lange). — τῶν 

1 According to Lange, James has in view Samaritans) and of the Jewish Christians 


all the hostile dissensions of the Jewish people (Nazarenes, Ebionites, etc.). 
(Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Alexandrians, 


CHAP. IV. 2. . Lai 


στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν] The lusts have their seat —as it were, their 
encampment (Wiesinger) —in the members (see on chap. iii. 2);1 they, how- 
ever, do not rest there, but according to their nature wage war (στρατεύονται). 
Estius (with whom Bouman agrees) incorrectly explains it: cupiditates, tan- 
quam milites, membris vestris, ut armis utuntur ad opera peccati, by which év is 
falsely understood. Calovius, Baumgarten, and De Wette, after 1 Pet. ii, 11 
and Rom. vii. 23, supply κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς or τοῦ vooc; but if James had meant 
the fight of the lusts against the soul or the reason, he would have more 
plainly expressed it. Gebser, Schneckenburger, Lange, and others (Briick- 
ner comprehends both) understand it of the strife of the desires against each 
other; but this is evidently a foreign thought. According to Wiesinger, 
“the strife arises and is carried on because the ἐπιθυμεῖν has as its opponent 
an οὐκ ἔχειν. . . οὐ δύνασθαι ἐπιτυχεῖν, against which it contends.” But it is 
better to refer the στρατεύεσθαι to every thing which hinders the gratification 
of the desires. As in what follows ἐπιθυμεῖτε refers to ai fdovai, and φονεύετε 
καὶ ζηλοῦτε to the idea στρατεύεσθαι, James appears chiefly to have intended the 
opposing strivings of others against wih the ἡδοναί contend. From this 
internal war arose the πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι.3 

Ver. 2 describes in a lively manner the origin of these external strifes. 
The stages are ἐπιθυμεῖτε. . . φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε... μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε; the 
second succeeds the first because it is without result, and the third the second 
for the same reason. — ἐπιθυμεῖτε here in a bad sense referring to τῶν ἡδονῶν, 
ver. 1. It is evident that the object to be thought on is worldly possessions ; 
James does not mention the object, because he only required to express “ the 
covetous impulse” (De Wette). It is unsatisfactory to think only on the 
desires of individuals. James rather describes the conduct of the churches 
to whom he writes; these, discontented with their low position in the world, 
longed after earthly power to which, as the church of God, they thought they 
hadaclaim. This striving made them consider persecution as a reproach ; 
on the contrary, James exhorts them to count it as a joy (chap. i. 2). This 
also produced among them that respect of persons toward the rich of the 
world, for which James blames them. This was also the source of internal 
division; the affluent in the church despising the poor instead of imparting 
to them of their wealth, and only striving after an increase of their riches; 
whilst the poor grudged the rich their possessions, and accused them of 
being the children of the world. Thus in these churches occurred the same 
strife which prevailed among the Jews, and was the source of factions among 
them. — By καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε, the uselessness of ἐπιθυμεῖν is expressed, and also the 
motive to φονεύειν καὶ ζηλοῦν is assigned; it is unnecessary here, with Gebser, 
Hottinger, De Wette, to explain éyew = to receive; it rather means: to have, 
to possess. The meaning is: From the desire follows not the possession, 
namely, of what is desired. — φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε]. As here the external 


1 Incorrectly, Laurentius: ‘‘Per membra 2 Comp. Plato, Phaedr. xv.: καὶ yap πολέ- 
hic intellige non tantum externa membra, sed μους καὶ στάσεις καὶ μάχας οὐδὲν ἄλλο παρέχει 
οἱ internos animiaffectus.”’ Still more strangely ἣ TO σῶμα καὶ at τούτου ἐπιθυμίαι ; consult also 
Lange explains τὰ μέλη as ‘the members of Cicero, De Fin. Bon. i. 18. 
individuals and the members of the people.” 


128 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


\ 
action is not yet described, but the internal disposition, φονεύειν cannot here 
be taken in its literal meaning, as Winer (p. 417 [E. T., 470]), Lange, Bou- 
man, think. Many expositors, as Carpzov, Pott, Morus, Augusti, Gebser, 
Schneckenburger, and others, explain it adverbially: “even to murder and 
killing;” but the position of the words contradicts this explanation; if the 
idea ζηλοῦτε was to be strengthened by φονεύετε, it must be placed first. 
Other expositors, as Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Hornejus, Laurentius, 
Benson, Schulthess, Hottinger, and others, solve the difficulty by the conjec- 
tural reading φθονεῖτε; but this reading has not the slightest support in au- 
thorities. Nothing remains, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, except to explain 
φονεύειν here, with Estius, Calovius, also De Wette (who, however, wavers), 
according to 1 John iii. 15, of internal hatred,! and “to justify this word by 
the boldness of the expression prevailing in this passage; comp. πόλεμοι καὶ 
μάχαι, στρατεύεσθαι, μοιχοί (more correctly poryaridec),” Wiesinger. It is true that 
then an anti-climax would seem to occur; but this is only in appearance, 
as in point of fact ζηλοῦν (hostile zeal already ready to break out in word 
and action) presupposes internal φονεύειν. ---- καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν, namely, 
that for which you hate and envy. The consequences of this are πόλεμοι, 
therefore James closes with μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε, in which likewise the answer 
to the question πύθεν πύλεμοι, πόθεν μάχαι is contained (Wiesinger). ᾿ With οὐκ 
ἔχετε, Which does not stand in the same relation to μάχεσθε, «.7.A., aS Kal ob δύν. 
ἐπιτυχεῖν does to gov. x. (7,2 James resumes the foregoing οὐκ ἔχετε and οὐ δύ- 
νασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν, in order to assign the reason of this “not having,” etc.; the 
reason is διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς, thus the want of prayer.4 That prayer for 
earthly things is heard, is not an opinion peculiar to James, but a divine 
promise; in which only this is to be observed, that the prayer must be no 
κακῶς αἰτεῖσθαι; see the following verse. 

Ver. 3. James apparently again resumes the last expression, whilst he 
now grants αἰτεῖτε to his readers; but as he designates this their asking as 
κακῶς αἰτεῖσθαι, he does not consider it as an actual prayer, so that the fore- 
going declaration is nevertheless true. It is therefore inaccurate to resolve 
αἰτεῖτε into “or even if you ask.”5—On the interchange of middle and active 


1 Stier in his exposition remarks: ‘‘ James reaches almost the climax of arbitrariness. He 


means hatred, but he speaks of killing and 
murdering, namely, in a spiritual sense, in 
order to designate hatred as an attack on one’s 
neighbor; ᾿ his translation: ‘“‘ye smite” (in- 
stead of Luther’s: “ye hate’), is not, how- 
ever, justified by this. 

2 The explanation of Oecumeniusis peculiar, 
but not to be justified: φονεύειν φησὶ tovs τὴν 
ἑαυτῶν ψυχὴν ἀποκτιννύντας ταῖς τολμηραῖς ταύ- 
ταις ἐπιχειρήσεσι, δι᾽ ἃς καὶ ὃ πρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν 
αὐτοῖς πόλεμος. 

3 Accordingly, not a comma is to be put 
after πολεμεῖτε, but a full stop; thus Tischen- 


dorf and Lachmann. Stier incorrectly explains ° 


it: ‘it thus remains at the close as at the 
beginning, Ye have not.” 
4 In this passage the exposition of Lange 


here assumes a fourfold gradation — (1) desir- 
ing; (2) murdering and envying; (3) fighting 
and warring; (4) asking and not receiving; 
and corresponding to these —(1) not having; 
(2) not receiving; (3) anincreased not having; 
(4) an increased not receiving. The first stage 
denotes Judaism full of chiliastic worldly- 
mindedness up to the time of the N. T.; the 
second, the attitude of the Jews toward the 
Christians; the third, the Jewish war; and 
the fourth, Judaism after the destruction of 
Jerusalem. 

5 Semler very strangely paraphrases it: 
*‘scio, quosdam vel publicis precibus (et exse- 
crationibus, iii. 9) eam in rem parcere, mala 
omnia precari imperatori et magistratui Ro- 
mano.” 


CHAP. IV. 4. 129 


forms, see Winer, p. 229 (E. T., 256.) The middle form naturally sug- 
gested itself in ver. 2, prayer for others being not the point under consider- 
ation; but in the next clause, as James wished to lay stress on the active 
side — of prayer in antithesis to AauBavsy — he used the active form. “ Ego- 
tistical praying for one’s self” (Lange) is incorrectly understood by the 
middle. — καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετε emphasizes the uselessness of their asking, the rea- 
son of which is assigned by the following: διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε. κακῶς finds its 
explanation in the following iva; your prayer is therefore evil, because it has 
no other object than δαπανᾷν ἐν ταὶς ἡδοναῖς. Incorrectly, Gebser: “for your 
prayer must implore only for true heavenly blessings.” The discourse is 
here rather of the temporal condition; this, James observes, continues with 
you a poor and depressed one, because ye ask for a better one only in order to 
be able to indulge your lusts. — δαπανᾷν, to expend, spend (Mark v. 26); here, 
in a bad sense, fo squander, to lavish. Suidas: λαμπρῶς ζὴν καὶ σπαθᾷν ; the 
object to the transitive verb is “that for which you pray.” ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς 
ὑμῶν, not with, but in, your lusts. Wahl incorrectly explains δαπανᾷν ἐν = 
sumtum ponere in aliqua re, 1.6., τιθέναι τὰ χρήματα ἔν tur; this meaning com- 
bines δαπανᾷν with εἰς. The sense is not “for the gratification of your lusts” 
(Baumgarten), but governed by your lusts. 

Ver. 4. μοιχαλίδες. The Rec. μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες has not only the most 
important authorities against it, but is also easily explained, because the 
term was taken in its literal sense, which is expressly done by Augusti, Jach- 
mann, and Winer. The context, however, proves that the literal meaning 
is not here to be retained. If the idea is used in a /igurative sense, ac- 
cording to the view which prevails in Ps. xxiii. 27 (Isa. lvii. 3 ff.; Ezek. 
xxiii. 27), Hos. ii. 2, 4, and other passages of the O. T. (comp. also Matt. 
xii. 39, xvi. 4; as also 2 Cor. xi. 2; Rev. ii. 22), and as the context requires, 
then every reason for a distinction of sex ceases. Theile, Lange, Briickner, 
have therefore correctly declared for the reading μοιχαλίδες. Theile’s opin- 
ion: non minus recte singuli homines scorta dicuntur, quam totum genus atque 
universa aliqua gens scortum, is so far inappropriate, as the expression μοιχα- 
Aide used “ of individuals in the Church of God is certainly singular” (Wie- 
seler); it is here to be referred not to individuals, but to the churches to 
whom James writes (not “the Jewish factions into which Judaism was 
sundered,” Lange); so also Brickner. These, according to the conduct 
described by James, bad fallen away from God, and therefore James, full 
of moral indignation, addresses them with these certainly severe words. — 
οὐκ οἴδατε, ὅτι points the readers to their own conduct. — ἡ φιλία τοὺ κόσμου. 
By κόσμος expositors understand either worldly goods (Pott, Gebser, Hot- 
tinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger) or worldly desires (Didymus, 
Laurentius), or both of these together (De Wette, Stier); and by ἡ φιλία τοῦ 
κόσμου, the inclination of the heart diverted toward worldly things. But it 
is more correct to take κόσμος in the same sense as in chap. i. 27 (see explana- 
tion of that passage), and to understand ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου of reciprocal friend- 
ship; yet so that active conduct toward the world here predominates. The 
Christian who aims at worldly glory conforms himself (contrary to the ad- 
monition in Rom. xii. 2) to the world, attaching himself to its pursuits, and 


180 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 

is thus inclined to it with his heart, his endeavor at the same time being to 
be esteemed and not despised by the world. The explanation of Piscator: 
amicitia cum impiis, is in essentials correct. The term φιλία (ἅπ. Aey. in N. ΤῸ) 
does not suit the usual explanation.!— ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ expresses as φιλία τοῦ 
κόσμου a reciprocal relation; yet here also the active reference predominates, 
on account of which most expositors explain it directly by ἔχθρα εἰς Θεόν (Rom. 
viii. 7), although Pott gives also the explanation: ad ejusmodi agendi rationem 
nos abripit, quae Deo displicet, nosque privat amore divino. Lachmann, follow- 
ing the translation of the Vulgate: inimica, has adopted the reading ἐχθρὰ, 
by which, however, the peculiar force which consists in the opposition of 
the two substantives is removed. — From the judgment here expressed con- 
cerning the φιλία τοῦ κόσμου, James infers the sentiment that follows: οὗν; 
therefore. —ic ἂν οὖν βουληθῇ, κιτ.Δ. By the usual explanation of φιλία τ. κόσμου, 
and of the corresponding φίλος τοῦ κύσμου, βουληθῇ is at all events disconcerting. 
Whilst some expositors urge that by it designed and conscious intention is 
designated (Baumgarten), and others oppose it to the actual deed,? and find 
the idea expressed that even the simple inclination to the love of the world 
(De Wette: “whosoever has perchance willed to love the world”) effects 
ἔχθρα τοῦ Oeod,2 Schneckenburger, on the contrary, says: verbi βουληθῇ cave 
premas vim. With each of these explanations the expression retains some- 
thing strange, which also is not removed by distinguishing, with Lange, the 
“formal” and the “material intention,” and understanding βουληθῇ only of 
the latter. But it is different as soon as κόσμος is considered not as an aggre- 
gate of things but of persons, since then φιλία, as above remarked, consists in 
a reciprocity. 
himself up to the pursuits of the world, will live in friendship with it, and 
thus will not be despised but esteemed and loved by it, has directed to it his 
wish (βουληθῇ)," --- he (thereby) is constituted an enemy of God ; ἐχθρὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ 
is likewise used in the sense of reciprocal relation, although here the passive 
meaning predominates. — καθίσταται has here the same meaning as in chap. 
iii. 6 (so also Lange); it is generally rendered incorrectly = ἐστε; inaccurately 
by Theile = fit, sistitur ; by Schneckenburger = stands there as; by Bouman 
= constituitur divino in judicio. 

Vv. 5,6. The views of expositors differ widely in the interpretation of 
ithese verses. At first sight the words following λέγει appear to be a quota- 
tion from the O. T. which James has in view. That of the older, and some 
of the more recent, expositors assume this to be the case, although they differ 
from each other, some combining πρὸς φθόνον directly with λέγει, but others 


3 Similarly also Wiesinger: ‘ James brings 
under the same judgment not only the decided 


1 According to Lange, the friendship with 
*the world consisted ‘‘in the chiliastic desire of 


The meaning is: Whosoever, although a Christian, giving. 


the enjoyment of a worldly glory which was 
only colored with hierarchical piety.” 

2 Laurentius states this opposition in the 
most definite terms: ‘non si tantum est inimi- 
cus Dei, gui est ipso opere amicus mundi, sed 
etiam ille, qui cum non possit, vult tamen... 
et sic voluntate implet, quod ipso opere non 
potest.” 


and expressed love to the world, but even the 
inclination to step into such a relation to the 
world.” 

4 In essentials Estius correctly says: ‘* Ter- 
ribilis valde sententia adversus eos qui suas 
actiones et studia componunt ad gratiam hu- 
manam. Hoc enim vere est esse amicum hujus 
seculi.”” 


ῷ 


. 


CHAP. IV. 38, 6. 131 


including it in the quotation. Against this explanation, however, is the 
circumstance that the words supposed to be here quoted nowhere occur in 
the O. T. Such a passage has accordingly been sought for, where a similar 
thought is expressed, but almost every expositor has fixed upon a different 
passage. Many expositors seek to remove the difficulty by supposing that 
James does not here quote any single definite passage, but only a sentiment 
contained in the O. T. generally, or in several of its expressions. Opposed 
to this idea, however, is, first, the uncertainty whether James will confirm 
by it the statement contained in what precedes or in what follows; and 
secondly, the formula of quotation pointing to a definite passage, particu- 
larly as λέγει is not = λαλεῖ. But, moreover, the clause μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν 
is against the view here indicated, since these words cannot be reckoned as 
part of the quotation, because James only afterwards quotes the O. T. pas- 
sage from which they are derived; but, also, they cannot be considered as a 
statement of James not belonging to the quotation, because δέ closely con- 
- nects them to what directly precedes. 


REMARK. — The various O. T. passages which have been conjectured are as 
follows: Gen. iv. 7 (Rauch); Gen. vi. 3, 5 (Grotius); Gen. viii. 21 (Beza, Ernest 
Schmid); Num. xi. 29 (Witsius); Ps. xxxvii. 1 and Ixxiii. 8 (Lange); Ps. cxix. 
20 ff. (Clericus); Prov. xxi. 10 (Michaelis); Song of Solomon viii. 6 (Coccejus) ; 
from the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon vi. 12 (Wetstein), and others. Ben- 
son supposes that James has in view the N. T. passage, Matt. vi. 24; Staudlin, 
that he has in view that passage and also Gal. v. 17; Storr, the latter passage 
only; and Bengel, 1 Pet. ii. 1 ff. Semler thinks that the passage is here cited 
from the ‘‘ Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs;”’ and Gabler, that the words are 
borrowed from a lost prophetical book. In recent times, Engelhardt (Remarks 
on Jas. iv. 5, 6, in the Ztschr. f. ἃ. Luth. Theol., by Delitzsch and Guericke, 
1869, Part. II.) has expressed the opinion that Isa. xiii. 8-11, Ps. exxxii. 12, 13, 
and Hos. i. 2, 15, form the groundwork of these words of James. Wolf, Hein- 
sius, and Zachariae refer the words to the thoughts contained in what follows; 
Theile, De Wette, Briickner (also first edition of this commentary), to the 
thoughts contained in what precedes, —that the friendship of the world is 
enmity with God. 

If the words πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ, x.7.A., do not form the quotation belong- 
ing to ἡ γραφὴ λέγει, it is to be assumed that James here already had in view 
the scripture adduced after διὸ λέγει in ver. 6, but that he did not yet state it, 
because the sentiment expressed in those words obtruded itself upon him in 
confirmation of ob κενῶς (Wiesinger). πρὸς φθόνον cannot, as Gebser and 
others suppose, be united with λέγει ; for if one takes it to be equivalent to 
de invidia or contra invidiam, there is this against it, that in what goes before 
there is no mention of envy; or if it is taken adverbially, then it appears as 
an appendage dragging after οὐ κενῶς, Which would be added the more unsuit- 
ably, because, as De Wette correctly remarks, it cannot be perceived what 
meaning can be attached to the assurance that the scripture does not speak 
enviously. Most expositors rightly refer it to ἐπιποθεῖ, which, without the 
addition, would be too bare; it is added to this idea as an adverbial and 
more exact statement = in an envious, jealous manner, for the sake of strength- 
ening it. It is linguistically incorrect to explain πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖν = ἐπιθυμεῖν 


132 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


κατὰ φθόνον, Gal. v.17 (thus Luther: “the spirit lusteth against envy;” 
Bengel, Stier; also Lange: “the spirit longeth over against and in opposition 
to envy”), since πρός, although it may be used in a hostile relation (Luke 
xxiil. 12; Acts vi. 1), yet does not in itself express a hostile reference. The 
explanation of many ancient and some recent expositors (Bede, Calvin, Beza, 
Grotius, Hottinger, Gabler, Bouman, and others), taking πρὸς φθόνον = ad 
invidiam, is also unsuitable; for, on the one hand, ἐπιποθεῖν is not = proclivem 
esse, and, on the other hand, it is contradicted by the connection in which 
there is not the slightest allusion to envy. With the correct explanation of 
πρὸς φθόνον, τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν (κατῴκισεν) ἐν ὑμῖν is either subjective, “the 
Spirit of God,” or objective, “the spirit of man.” In the first case ἐπιποθεῖ 
has no object. De Wette, Briickner (so also Schneckenburger and some of 
the other expositors) supply ἡμᾶς as the object. Engelhardt, on the contrary, 
will supply no object, thinking “the supposed translation of the verb 82P is 
conclusive against an object;” but 3} requires an object no less than ἐπιπο- 
θεῖν, as it is, as well as the other, a relative (not an absolute) verb. By this 
interpretation ἐν ἡμῖν is to be understood of Christians, in whom the Holy 
Spirit (according to Engelhardt: “by the covenant of baptism”) has taken 
up His abode. In the second case, the subject is not expressed. Wiesinger 
supplies ὁ Θεός. There is no difficulty in this completion, the less so as the 
preceding 7 γραφῆ, which, in connection with λέγει, is personified (comp. Gal. 
111. 8, προιδοῦσα ἡ γραφῇ), points to God, with whom it is, as it were, identified. 
This second explanation would deserve the preference before the first, as it 
is not apparent why James here, instead of simply God, should name the 
Holy Spirit, whom he has not elsewhere mentioned in his whole Epistle, and 
because the specification of an object belonging to ἐπιποθεὶ, which is essen- 
tially required for the thought, can scarcely be wanting. Certainly, in this 
second interpretation, ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμὶν added to πνεῦμα is difficult, not so 
much on account of the formation of the expression, as because this addition 
appears to be a very unimportant remark. But it is otherwise with the 
reading κατῴκισεν, as then the relative clause marks “the right of propriety 
as the ground of explanation of envious love” (Wiesinger). According to 
this view, the passage is to be explained: Or think you that the scripture says 
in vain — (rather God) enviously desires the spirit which He has made to dwell in 
us, but He gives the greater grace —wherefore it says, etc. —It is yet to be 
remarked that δοκεῖν has the same meaning as in chap. i. 26; κενῶς, that is, 
without contents, corresponding to the truth; comp. κενοὶ λόγοι, Eph. v. 6 
(Plato, Lach. 1902). The adverbial import of πρὸς φθόνον is justified by the 
usage of the Greek language; see Pape’s Wérterb.: the word πρός; Winer, 
p- 878 (E. T., 425); Buttmann, p. 292 f. (E. T., 340). The verb ἐπιποθεὶν is 
also elsewhere in the N. T. construed with the accusative. The idea that 
God cherishes an “envious and loving longing” (Wiesinger) after the spirit 
of man, corresponds to the circle of ideas in the O. T., from which also the 
preceding μοιχαλίδες is to be explained. 


REMARK. — The principal objections of Engelhardt — that the two members 
of the 5th and 6th verses are not in congruity, and that the scripture adduced in 


CHAP. IV. 6. 138 


ver. 6 does not prove the thought expressed in ver. 4—are solved by the obser- 
vation that the friendship of the world, in which man opposes himself to the 
will of God, is pride, and that those to whom God gives grace are none other 
than the humble, who disdain to be the arrogant friends of the world. It is 
erroneous when Engelhardt denies that an emphasis rests on οὐ κενῶζ, so that 
the grammatical construction forbids to make the idea πρὸς φθόνον, x.7.A., inter- 
vene as a contrast to κενῶς; the asyndeton form is, besides, wholly suitable to 
James’s mode of expression; moreover, Engelhardt on his part finds himself 
constrained to supply a transitionary thought before μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν. ‘That 
James does not quote the scripture intended by him directly after the first λέγει, 
but defers it because he wished to emphasize that it was not vain and empty, 
may well surprise us, but it is to be explained from the liveliness peculiar to 
James. Moreover, in Rom. xi. 2-4, although not in the same, yet in a similar 
manner, the passage quoted is separated from the form of quotation: ti Aéye 7 
γραφῆ, and in such a manner that the formula itself is taken up again by an ἀλλά, 
referring to the intervening remark, before the intended passage. When Engel- 
hardt thinks that the words in consideration are to be recognized as the quota- 
tion, because they are words which do not elsewhere occur in James, apart from 
this being any thing but conclusive, it is, on the contrary, to be observed that 
πνεῦμα understood of the human spirit already occurs in chap. ii. 26, and that the 
words πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖν do not occur in the passages of the O. T. which James, 
according to Engelhardt’s opinion, had in view. 


Ver. 6. The words μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν are explained from the fact that 
James already had in his view the passage of the O. T., afterwards quoted, 
from which these words are taken. The subject is the same as in the former 
sentence. The comparative does not express the comparison with the bless- 
ings which the world gives (Bede: majorem gratiam dat quam amicitia mundi; 
thus also Tirinus, Gebser, Pott, Winer, Schneckenburger, Kern), or after 
which those: invidi atque arrogantes, quos reprehendit, Jas. v. 2-4 (Bouman), 
longed for; also it does not indicate “the greater measure of the comforting 
and satisfying Spirit as related to the longing Spirit” (Lange: “but he 
gives grace greater than the longing”), but “ μείζονα suggests a comparison 
with a case in which there is no πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθ.᾽ (Wiesinger, so also De 
Wette); incorrectly Bengel: 60 majorem, quo longius recesseris ab invidia. — 
διό = therefore, because it is so (De Wette). ἡ γραφή is to be supplied to λέγει. 
Kern incorrectly takes λέγει impersonally: it is said. The passage is Prov. 
111. 84, and is verbally quoted according to the LXX., except that here, as 
also in 1 Pet. v. 5, 6 Θεός is put instead of κύριος. The ὑπερήφανοι are those 
who, whilst they in striving after high things (ra ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες, Rom. xii. 
16) will be the friends of the world, are not ready to bear the reproach of 
Christ. That these are ἐχθροὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the scripture confirms by ἀντιτάσσεται. 
— Opposed to these are the ταπεινοί, that is, the lowly, those who τοῖς ταπεινοῖς 
συναπαγόμενοι, Rom. xii. 16, seek not the friendship of the world, but humbly 
bear the cross of Christ. That these are φίλοι τοῦ Θεοῦ the Scripture confirms 
by δίδωσιν xapw.1 Comp. Ecclus. iii. 19, 20. 

1 The difficulty of the passage has induced plain the words from διὸ λέγει to χάριν as a 


some expositors to have recourse to arbitrary gloss from 1 Pet. v. 5. Hottinger (with whom 
emendations; thus Erasmus and Grotius ex- Reiche agrees), on the contrary, is inclined to 


134 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 

Ver. 7. From the sentiment expressed in the preceding, James infers 
(οὗν) several exhortations expressive of the duty of humility. — ὑποτάγητε οὖν 
τῷ Θεῷ]. The exhortation is addressed to the ὑπερήφανοι: because God ἀντι- 
τάσσεται them, they are to ὑποτάσσειν to God. In Schneckenburger’s explana- 
tion: plena obedientia vos Deo committite, ut sitis δοῦλοι Θεοῦ, obedientia is in- 
correctly emphasized. Calvin’s is better: subjectio ἰδία, quam commendat, 
HUMILITATIS esl; neque enim generaliter hortatur, ut pareamus Deo, sed requirit 
SUBMISSIONEM.! — dvtiornte δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ]. This exhortation is closely joined 
to the preceding; submission to God means resistance to the devil. This 
requirement was so much the more appropriate, as the readers wished to be 
the friends of the κόσμος, whose ἄρχων is the devil. —xai φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν]. 
Comp. Hermas, i. 2, Mand. 12 (ed. Hefele, p. 380) : δύναται ὁ διάβολος παλαῖσαι, 
καταπαλαῖσαι δὲ οὐ δύναται. ἐὰν οὖν ἀντίστῃς αὐτῷ, νικηθεὶς φεύξεται ἀπὸ σοῦ κατῃσχυμ- 
μένος. Calvin: Quamvis continuos insultus repetat, semper tamen exclusus disce- 
dit. — καί after the imperative commencing the apodosis; so also in Matt. 
vil. 7 and frequently. 1 Pet. v. 5-9 is to be compared with this passage, 
where upon the quotation of the same O. T. passage follow exhortations to 
humility before God, and to resistance to the devil. 

Ver. 8. In contrast to.the last exhortation and promise is the exhorta- 
tion ἐγγίσατε τῷ Θεῷ, united in a similar manner with a promise. Whilst the 
devil is to be kept at a distance by resistance, we are to draw nigh to God. 
“ ἐγγίζειν is not to be limited to prayer, but is to be understood generally of 
man’s turning to God” (Wiesinger). Comp. on ἐγγίζειν, Isa. xxix. 13;-Heb. 
vil. 19. — καὶ ἐγγιεῖ -ὕμῖν, corresponding to the preceding φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν. Sim- 
ilar expressions in 2 Chron. xv. 2; Isa. lvii. 15; Zech. i. 3. — But in order 
to draw nigh to God, conversion from the former nature is necessary; there- 
fore καθαρίσατε χεῖρας... ἁγνίσατε καρδίας. The cleansing of the hands consists 
in withdrawing them from evil and in employing them in good works; the 
sanctification of the heart, in contending with impure desires, and in the cul- 
tivation of a holy disposition. The external and the internal must corre- 
spond; comp. Ps. xxiv. 4: ἀθῶος χερσὶ καὶ καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ. Pott erroneously 
supposes the first expression to be a symbolical designation of μετάνοια, and 
denies its reference to the ezterna vitae integritas (Carpzov). The reason 
why James names the hands is not only because they are the principal organa 
operandi, but also because that he, with ἐγγίζειν τῷ Θεῷ, does not think exclu- 
sively on prayer; see 1 Tim. ii. 8. On ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, comp. 1 Pet. i. 22; 
1 John iii. 3. — ἁμαρτωλοὶ... δίψυχοι]. This address, designating the present 
condition of the addressed, shows the necessity of μετάνοια; ἁμαρτωλοί, because 
instead of God, who chose them for His possession, they serve the lusts 


erase the words from μείζονα to λέγει, and to 
insert a δέ between ὁ and Θεός, Also Liicke, 
according to Gebser, considered those words a 
kind of gloss and error librarii to ἡ γραφὴ λέγει 
and τοῖς ταπ. did., ver. 6, and that the context 
is to be thus construed: πρὸς φθόνον ... ἐν 
ὑμῖν ἣ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἢ yp. λέγει: ὃ Θεὸς 
ὑπερηφάνοις, K.T.A. 

1 On account of its strangeness, we give 


here Semler’s remarks on this passage: ‘‘ Ja- 
cobus, Paulus, Petrus, Judas, uno quasi ore id 
confirmant, opus esse, ut Romanis et sic Deo 
se subjiciant”’ (in which Lange finds no fault 
were it only said: “αὖ Deo et sic Romanis”’) 5 
and afterwards: “ τῷ διαβόλῳ, qui per πνεῦμα 
φθόνου vos suscitat adversus magistratum 
Romanum;” similarly also, of course, Lange. 


CHAP. IV. 9, 10. 135 


(ἡδοναῖς, ver. 1) of the κόσμος, corresponding to μοιχαλίδες, ver. 4; δίψυχοι, be- 
cause they would at the same time be Christians. De Wette’s explanation 
is too weak: ye undecided (between God and the world); Schneckenburger’s 
remark: hic sensu latiore sumendum quam, i. 8, is incorrect, for διακρίνεσθαι 
there has its reason in the Christian giving his heart to the world instead of 
to God; see Test. Aser., 111. p. 691: οἱ διπρόσωποι ob Θεῷ ἀλλὰ ταὶς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτῶν 
δουλεύουσι. ---- Calvin correctly remarks: non duo hominum genera designat, sed 
eosdem vocat peccatores et duplices animo.1 

Ver. 9. The μετάνοια required in ver. 8 does not take place without grief 
and mourning for guilt. The consciousness of the latter is the road to the 
former; therefore the summons now to this mourning: ταλαιπωρήσατε καὶ πεν- 
θήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε. The repetition of καί is an expression of emotion; ταλαι- 
πωρεῖν, in the N. T. ἀπ. dey. (the adjective in Rom. vii. 24; Rev. iii. 17; the 
substantive in chap. v. 1; Rom. iii. 16), literally, to suffer external hardships, 
as in Mic. ii. 4, is here used of the internal condition: to feel unhappy, 
wretched, as the adjective in Rom. vii. 27. Estius, Gagnejus, Grotius, erro- 
neously refer it to bodily castigations: afjligite vosmet ipsos jejuniis et ‘aliis 
corporis σκληραγωγίαις (Grotius); similarly Hottinger: sensum miseriae CLARIS 
INDICIIS PRODITE; falsely also Beza: reprehendit dvadynoiav in adversis.— 
πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε, the same combination in Neh. viii. 9; 2 ‘Sam. xix. 1; 
and in the N. T., Mark xvi. 10; Luke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 15, 19; wail and 
weep. Grotius incorrectly explains πενθῆσατε = lugubrem habitum induite, 
saccum et cilicia; there is not the slightest indication that James had in view 
the external signs of mourning in dress and the like. If the foregoing exhor- 
tations point to a change of the lusts and joy of worldly life into godly 
mourning (τὴν κατὰ Θεὸν λύπην, 2 Cor. vii. 10), this is still more definitely 
expressed in what follows, by which James passes from the outward mani- 
festation (γέλως... πένθος) to the interna] state (χαρὰ . . . κατήφεια). --- κατῆ- 
geta ἂπ. Aey. (the adj., Wisd. of Sol. xvii. 4), literally, the casting-down of the 
eyes, here indicates internal shame.? Compare with this the picture of the 
publican in Luke xviii. 13. 

Ver. 10. Conclusion — carrying with it an O. T. coloring —of the ex- 
hortation, in which what has hitherto been said is summed up. — ταπεινώθητε 
ἐνώπιον κυρίου]. ταπεινώθητε in reference to ταπεινοῖς, x.7.A., ver. 6. — κυρίου, 1.6.» 
Θεοῦ (comp. ver. 7), not Χριστοῦ (τού! 8). --- ἐνώπιον not = ὑπό (1 Pet. v. 6: 
ταπεινώθητε ὑπὸ τὴν... χεῖρα τοῦ Θεοῦ), but expresses that the self-abasement 
is to take place in consciousness of the presence of God, who gives grace 
only to the humble.’ — καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς is to be referred both to the present 
concealed and to the future manifested glory of the humble Christian 
(comp. chap. i. 9). The contrasted ideas ταπεινοῦν and ὑψοῦν often occur; 
see in the O. T., Job v. 11; Ezek. xxi. 26; in the N. T., Matt. xxiii. 12; 
Luke xiv. 11; 1 Pet. v. 6, and other places. 


1 Kern: As James considers man in refer- 2 In Plutarch, Them. 9, it is used synony- 
ence to the divine grace as the receiver, 80, on mously with δυσθυμία. 
the other hand, he takes into account the free 3 Comp. Ecclus. ii. 17: ot φοβούμενοι κύριον 


self-activity of man as the condition by which ++ « ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ταπεινώσουσι Tas Ψψυχὰς 
arelation of unity of man with God takes αὐτῶν. 
place. 


136 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


Ver. 11. Without any indication of a connection with the preceding, 
James passes to a new exhortation, which, however, is so far closely attached 
to the preceding, inasmuch as humiliation before God carries with itself 
humility toward our brethren. From the fact that this exhortation, although 
decidedly earnest, has yet undeniably a milder character than the former, 
and that James uses here the address ἀδελφοί, whereas before it was μοιχαλίδες, 
ἁμαρτωλοί, dipvyo,) it is to be inferred that James now addresses, at least 
primarily, those who by the worldly ways of others felt induced to do those 
things against which he here exhorts them. — μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων]. κατα- 
λαλεῖν only here and in 1 Pet. ii. 12, iii. 16 (the substantive in 2 Cor. xii. 30; 
the adjective in Rom. i. 30; 1 Pet. ii. 1), to speak in a hostile manner against 
one; Luther, “to slander.” ἀλλήλων, against each other. Estius, Semler, Pott, 
Gebser, Hottinger, incorrectly restrict the exhortation to teachers.? — ὁ κατα- 
λαλῷν, x.7.4., assigns the reason of the exhortation. The two ideas καταλαλῶν 
and κρίνων are indeed closely connected, but are not equivalent, since xara- 
λαλεῖν presupposes κρίνειν ; they are here indicated as distinct ideas by ἤ. --- 
By the addition ἀδελφοῦ not only is the reprehensibleness of καταλαλεῖν empha- 
sized (Schneckenburger: jam hoc vocabulo, quantum peccatur καταλαλιαὶς, 
submonet), but also the reason is given for the sentiment here expressed 
καταλαλεὶ νόμου. By αὐτοῦ added to τὸν ἀδελφόν this is brought out more 
strongly, whilst also the brotherly union is more distinctly marked than 
by the simple ἀδελφοῦ; incorrectly Bengel: fraterna aequalitas laeditur obtrec- 
tando; sed MAGIS judicando. — καταλαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει νόμον]. By νόμος the 
same law is here meant as in chap. i. 25, ii. 9, ete.: the law of Christian 
life which according to its contents is none other than the law of love, to 
which ἀδελφοῦ and τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ already point. By reviling and con- 
demning one’s brother, the law of love itself is reviled and condemned, 
whilst it is thereby disclaimed as not lawfully existing, and, as may be 
added, its tendency to save and not to destroy is condemned (Lange). 
The explanation of De Wette, that there is here a kind of play of words, 
in which is contained only the idea of contempt and disregard of the law, 
is unsatisfactory. Grotius, Baumgarten, Hottinger, quite erroneously under- 
stand by νόμος the Christian doctrine, and find therein expressed the senti- 
ment, that whosoever imposes upon his neighbor arbitrary commandments 
designates the Christian doctrine as defective, and in so far sets himself up 
as its judge.*— With the following words: εἰ dé νόμον κρίνεις» x.t.A., the fur- 


1 Lange incorrectly observes that there is 
no reason to see here a transition from one 
class toanother, But it is not here maintained 
‘that James has in view a sharply exclusive dis- 
itinetion of different classes of his readers. 

2 Wiesinger correctly says that we are not 
there to think of a contest between Jewish and 
Gentile Christians; Lange incorrectly asserts 
ithat the primary reference here is to the in- 
ternal divisions of Judaism. 

8 The opinion of Stier is mistaken: ‘* Who- 
ever improperly and officiously notes and deals 
with the sins of other men, throws blame 


thereby upon the law of God, as if it were not 
sufficient; for he acts as if he supposed it 
necessary to come to the help of the law.” 

4 Lange, in accordance with his view, sup- 
poses the reference to be to the Jewish cere- 
monial law, although he does not explain νόμος 
as equivalent to doctrine. Also Bouman thinks 
that James has here in view the judicia de 
aliena conscientia ; but James does not indi- 
eate that among his readers disputes took place 
de sabbati veneratione, de licito vel illicito 
ciborum usu, ete. Augustine here arbitrarily 
assumes an attack upon the Gentile Christians. 


CHAP. IV. 12. 137 
ther consequence is added: but if thou Judgest the law, thou art not a doer of 
the law, but a judge. — The particle dé serves to carry on the thought: οὐκ el 
ποιητὴς νόμου, 1.e., thou thereby departest from the attitude which becomes 
thee ; for the law is given to man that he might do it, but whosoever thinks 
he has right against the law, cannot be a doer of it, and consequently 
assumes a position which does not belong to him (Wiesinger), which posi- 
tion is, as the sequel says, ἀλλὰ κριτῆς. Baumgarten, Gebser, Neander, Wie- 
singer, Lange, and others supply the genitive νόμου to κριτῆς ; incorrectly, for 
(1) this would make this sentence and the one preceding it tautological ; 
(2) it dilutes the idea κριτῆς in its contrast to ποιητὴς νόμου; and (3) the 
sequel which is added to this idea κρίτης, adverts not to the judging of 
the law, but to the judging of the man. The meaning is: Whosoever 
judges the law constitutes himself a judge, giving a law according to 
which he judges or pronounces sentence upon his neighbor. But this is 
not the province of man. The following verse tells the reason why it 
is not so. 

Ver. 12. One is the lawgiver and judge, (namely) He who can rescue (save) 
and destroy. The chief accents lies on εἷς, in opposition to men who presume 
to be judges. —6 νομοθέτης καὶ κριτῆς]. The idea νομοθέτης is here introduced, 
because the judging belongs only to Him who has given the law, and is 
adduced against those who by judging their neighbor act as lawgivers, 
whereas their duty is to obey the given law.1— ὁ δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι 
serves for a more precise statement of the subject εἰς (so also Briickner, 
Lange, Bouman); it mentions who this One is, and in such a manner that 
it is also announced why He, and He only, can be νομοθέτης καὶ κριτῆς. 
Schneckenburger correctly observes: ὁ δυνάμενος... articulus appositionis 
signum, ad subjectum εἰς pertinentis grammatice; but incorrectly adds: ita 
autem ut, quoad sensum, melius in propriam resolvatur sententiam. Not only 
grammatically, but also according to the sense, ὁ δυνάμενος, etc., is to be 
most closely united to εἰς ; therefore also Luther's translation: “there is one 
Lawgiver who is able to save and to condemn,” is incorrect.? — ὁ δυνάμενος 
is not, with Schneckenburger, to be resolved into ᾧ ἔξεστι, but is to be retained 
in its literal meaning. Bengel correctly remarks: nostrum non est judicare ; 
praesertim cum exequi non POSSIMUS. — On σῶσαι, see chap. ii. 14; on ἀπο- 


Correctly, Laurentius: ‘Is qui detrahit prox- 
imo, detrahit legi, quia lex prohibet omnem 
detractionem, sed et judicat idem legem, quia 
hoc ipso quod contra prohibitionem legis 
detrahit, judicat quasi, legem non recte pro- 
hibuisse.” 

1 The explanation of Morus is false: “ legis- 
lator et judex est una eademque persona; ”’ and 
Theile infers from this something entirely for- 
eign: ‘“‘unus est legislator ...idem utriusque 
legis auctor: et severioris mosaicae et liberali- 
oris christianae . . . isque etiam judex .. . et 
legitimus et idoneus, idque et utriusque legis 
et eorum qui alterutram sequuntur:” of all 
which there is here no mention. 


2 Most expositors, in the interpretation of 
this passage, have failed in precision, being 
satisfied with giving only its general meaning. 
‘They appear for the most part to regard ὁ δυνά- 
μενος, Κ- τ. Δ.» as an attribute of ὁ νομοθέτης 
(the Rec. omits καὶ κριτής); thus De Wette 
translates it: ‘* One is the lawgiver and judge, 
who is able to save and to destroy.” Wiesinger 
gives here only a paraphrase which is wanting 
in definiteness: ‘ Judging us and our brethren 
belongs to Him alone (namely, to Him who as 
lawgiver is not under, but above the law), and 
He proves His exclusive right by His power to 
save and to destroy, with which he confirms 
His judicial sentence.” 1 


188 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 
λέσαι, particularly Matt. x. 28.— σὺ δὲ τίς εἰ expresses the insignificance of 
man, in contrast to ὁ δυνάμενος, x.7.A. (Schneckenburger), thus: “‘Thou who 
hast no power to save and to destroy;” comp. Matt. x. 28. — The same 
question in Rom. xiv. 4, ix. 20.1—6xpivor]. Schneckenburger : “thou, appos. 
ad pron. σύ; qui articuli hane vim nescierunt, loco participii posuerunt ὃς 
κρίνεις." — τὸν πλησίον, without the personal pronoun, as in Mark xii. 33; 
Rom. xiii. 10, xv. 2. The Rec. τὸν ἕτερον perhaps arose from Rom. ii. 1. 
Ver. 13. The apostrophe commencing with this verse, and continued 
until chap. v. 6, has a character plainly distinguished from other portions 
of the Epistle — (1) by dye viv repeated; (2) those addressed are neither 
directly designated as ἀδελφοί, as is elsewhere the case with James (with the 
single exception of chap. iv. 1 ff.), nor are yet characterized as members of 
the Christian Church; (8) only their forgetfulness of God is described, and 
their judgment is announced, without any call being added to desist from 
their practice and be converted; so that this apostrophe contains not the 
slightest exhortation to repentance, as is the case with those addressed in 
ver. 8 as ἁμαρτωλοί and δίψυχοι. All this is a sufficient proof that James has 
in view, as Oecumenius, Bede, Semler, Pott, Hottinger, and others have cor- 
rectly remarked (differently Gebser, Schneckenburger, De Wette, Wiesinger ; 
Theile considers that Jewish Christians and Jews are here addressed), not so 
much the members of the church, as rather the rich (οἱ πλούσιοι, chap. v. 1), 
of whom it is already said in chap. ii. 6, 7, that they oppress the Christians 
and blaspheme the name of Christ, and who are already, in chap. i. 10, 
opposed to “the brother of low degree.” The severe language against them 
in an epistle directed to Christians is sufficiently explained from the fact 
that with many among them, as follows from ver. 1 ff., the same forgetful- 
néss of God had gained ground. Also the first section (vv. 13-17) is of 
such a nature that the fault therein expressed affected many of the readers 
not less than the arrogant Jews.? In this section, those addressed are at 
first characterized only according to their presumptuous security in their 
striving after earthly gain. — dye viv]. ἄγε, occurring in the N. T. only here 
and in chap. v. 1, is a summons, which also, with classical writers, is joined 
with the plural (Winer, p. 458 [E. T., 516]).— νῦν serves not only for 
strengthening (De Wette, Wiesinger), but likewise for connection with 
what goes before. As in what follows there is no summons to do any 
thing, some expositors suppose that dye viv is designed only to excite atten- 
tion; Grotius: jam ego ad vos; so also Pott, Theile: age, audite vos. 
Others supply a thought; thus Schulthess: πῶς ποιεῖτε, or μὴ καλῶς ποιεῖτε, 
and the like. De Wette thinks that the summons to lay aside the fault 
is indirectly contained in the reproof. Wiesinger suggests ver. 16 as the 
but not in those other 


1 Yet is the ov here to be understood comma after εἶ, 


in definite antithesis to another, namely 
to God, on which account also δέ is added. 
It has therefore a more independent mean- 
ing than in the passages adduced from 
the Epistle to the Romans. In this there 
is reason for the editors Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, and Buttmann here placing a 


passages. 

2 Lange agrees with this in essentials, affirm- 
ing that this section was principally addressed 
to the Jews; whereby he certainly proceeds 
from the erroneous supposition that the Epistle 
was directed to the Jews generally by the hands 
of the Jewish Christians. 


CHAP. IV. 13. 139 


material for the designed imperative clause. It is more correct to assume 
that James has already here in view the imperative clause in chap. v. 1,— 
kAaboare . . . ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν, x.7.2.,— placed after dye viv again re- 
sumed; thus Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger; similarly Lange, accord- 
ing to whom dye viv “refers to the announcement of the judgment, which 
comes out quite clear in chap. v. 1, but is here darkly and menacingly 
alluded to.” — οἱ λέγοντες]. Ye who say. λέγειν is to be retained in its usual 
signification; comp. chap. ii. 14. Theile, without reason, explains it: qui 
non solum cogitare soletis sed etiam dicere audetis. — σήμερον καὶ αὔριον an- 
nounces the precise duration of the intended journey — not when it should 
commence, but how long it should endure. With this explanation there is 
no difficulty in καί ; otherwise 7 (as the Rec. reads) must stand. In καί there 
lies a greater confidence (Theile), as according to it a definite plan is fixed 
upon also for the morrow. According to Wiesinger, different instances are 
here taken together, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 1 (so already Bengel: unus dicit hodie, 
idem aliusve cras, ut commodum est); according to this, xai would have to 
be explained: “and relatively” (see Meyer on that passage); but the in- 
definiteness contained therein does not suit the certainty with which these 
people speak. Lange’s meaning is unjustified: “that αὔριον is used for the 
undefined future subsequent to to-day.” — πορευσόμεθα]. The indicative we 
shall journey expresses the certain confidence more strongly than the con- 
junctive let us journey; see critical remarks. — εἰς τήνδε τὴν πόλιν]Ί. Luther: 
into this and that city. This explanation is also in Winer, ed. 6, p. 146 
(E. T., ed. 7, 162), who adduces for it τῆνδε τὴν ἡμέραν in Plutarch, Symp. i. 
6.1; but Al. Buttmann (p. 90 [E. T., 103]), on the other hand, correctly 
asserts that the pronoun in that passage, as everywhere among Greek 
authors, has its full demonstrative meaning, and that therefore it must be 
understood in James in the same sense; thus Schirlitz (p. 222) observes 
that the pronoun is here used δεικτικῶς ; see also Liinemann’s remark in 
Winer, ed. 7, p. 153 (E. T., 162); still it is not to be explained, with 
Schneckenburger: in hance urbem, quae in conspectu quasi sita est; but, with 
Theile: certa jfingitur, quae vero verie eligi potest. Those introduced as 
speaking mean each time a definite city; but as this differs with different 
persons, James could only indicate it in an indefinite manner, and he does 
so by the pronoun by which each time a definite city is pointed to; thus into 
the city which the traveller had chosen as his aim. By πορεύεσθαι εἰς τ. πολ. is 
indicated not merely the going into the city, but also the journey to the city in 
which they would remain. — καὶ ποιῆσομεν, x.7.4.]. We will spend there a yeur; 
ποιεὶν With a designation of time, as in Acts xv. 33, xx. 3, and other places; 
in the O. T., Proy. xiii. 23; see also Nicarch., Epigr. 35 (Jacobs’ ed.): ἐν 
ταύτῃ πεποίηκα πολὺν χρόνον. Luther incorrectly translates it: “and will con- 
tinue there a year:”?} for ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα is not the accusative of duration, but 
the proper objective accusative. The reading éva fittingly expresses the 
confidence with which those introduced as speaking measure out their time 


1 Stier, correctly : ‘‘ will spend there a year.” that the time in question is busily employed,” 
The opinion of Lange, that “ ποιεῖν along with is contradicted by 2 Cor. xi. 25. 
a definition of time may likewise have indicated 


140 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


beforehand, but not “their restless and unsteady conduct” (Lange). — καὶ 
ἔμπορευσόμεθα καὶ κερδήσομεν]. Bengel: καί frequens; polysyndeton exprimit libi- 
dinem animi securi. — ἐμπορεύεσθαι = to traffic; the final aim is designated 
by κερδήσομεν. That aim is worldly gain, which, in carnal security, is recog- 
nized as certain to be realized, so that it cannot fail. Kern correctly re- 
marks: “ Traffic is introduced only by way of example, as characterizing 
* man’s doings with reference to the earthly life as contrasted with the life 
in God.” 

Ver. 14. James opposes to carnal security the uncertainty of the future 
and the transitoriness of life. —oitwec = ut qui; correctly Wiesinger: “Ye 
who are of such a character that,” ete. — οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ (τὰ) τῆς αὔριον indi- 
cates the ignorance of what the next day will bring forth; comp. Prov. iii. 28, 
xxvii. 1: μὴ Kavya τὰ εἰς αὔριον, ob yap γινώσκεις τί τέξεται ἣ ἐπιοῦσα : thus whether 
life will still last. What follows shows that James had this chiefly in view. 
— ποία γὰρ ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν ;]. -yap gives an explanation of οὐκ ἐπίστασθε. ---- ποῖα, as in 
1 Pet. ii. 20, how constituted? with the subsidiary meaning of nothingness. 
By the reading adopted by Buttmann: οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τῆς αὔριον ποία ζωὴ 
ὑμῶν, the genitive τῆς αὔριον is dependent on ποία ζωῇ ; thus, “Ye know not 
how your life of to-morrow is circumstanced.” This idea is evidently 
feebler than the usual reading, for it is supposed that they yet live on 
the following day, which according to the other reading is denoted as doubt- 
ful. — ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε, x.7.4.]. γάρ refers to the idea lying at the foundation of 
the preceding question, that life is entirely nothing. —drwic (in the N. T. 
only here and in Acts ii. 19, in an O. T. quotation), literally breath ; thus in 
Wisd. of Sol. vii. 25, synonymous with ἀπόῤῥοια, has in the O. T. and the 
Apocrypha chiefly the meaning of smoke; thus Gen. xix. 28: ἀτμὶς καμίνου ; 
so also Ecclus. xxii. 24; Ezek. viii. 11: ἀτμὶς τοῦ θυμιάματος ; Ecclus. xxiv. 15: 
λιβάνου ἀτμὶς; see also Joel iii. 3; Ecclus. xliii. 4; in the classics it also 
occurs in the meaning of vapor. According to biblical usage, it is here to 
be taken in the first meaning (smoke); thus Lange; Luther translates it by 
vapor; De Wette and Wiesinger, by steam. —éore is stronger than the Rec. 
ἐστι; not only their life, but also they themselves are designated as a smoke; 
as in chap.i. 10 it is also said of the πλούσιος, that he shall fade away as 
the flower of the grass. — By ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον. . . ἀφανιζομένη, the nature of the 
smoke is stated. — πρὸς ὀλίγον = for a little time; ὀλίγον is neuter. —xai is to 
be explained: as it appears, so it also afterwards vanishes. In the corre- 
sponding passages, Job viii. 9, Ps. cii. 12, exliv. 4, the transitoriness of life 
is represented not under the image of ἀτμίς (Wiesinger), but of a shadow; 
differently in Ps. cii. 4. 

Ver. 15. After the reason has been given in ver. 14 why it was wrong to 
speak as in ver. 13, this verse tells us how we ought to speak. — ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν 
ὑμᾶς is closely connected with οἱ λέγοντες, ver. 13, so that ver. 14 forms a paren- 
thesis: Ye who say, To-day, etc., instead of saying, ἐὰν ὁ κύριος, x.7.A, — Accord- 
ing to the reading (jooyev καὶ ποιήσομεν (instead of the Rec. ζήσωμεν καὶ ποιῆσωμεν) 

1 Lange indeed assents to this; but he thinks trait of the diabolically excited worldliness of 


that the apostle, with a prophet’s glance, evi- his people, as it afterwards became more and 
dently describes beforehand the fundamental more developed. 


CHAP. IV. 16. 141 


it is most natural to refer καὶ ζῇσομεν not to the protasis (as Tischendorf 
punctuates it), but to the apodosis (Lachmanu and Buttmann; so also Wie- 
singer and Lange); for, first, it is grammatically more correct + to make only 
the conjunctive θελήσῃ dependent on ἐάν, and to take the two indicatives 
together; and, secondly, from this construction the striking thought results, 
that not only the doing, but also the life, as the condition of the doing, is 
dependent on the will of God: it is accordingly to be translated: {7} the Lord 
will, we shall both live and do this or that. Correctly, Wiesinger: “It appears 
to be more suitable to the sense to take ἐὰν ὁ x. θελ. as a Single condition, and 
not to complete it by a second.” On the other hand, most expositors retain 
the reading of the Rec., but they construe it differently. De Wette refers καὶ 
ζήσωμεν to the protasis; and takes the second καί as belonging to the apodosis: 
“Tf the Lord will and we live, we shall,” etc.; so also Erasmus, Luther, 
Calvin, Hornejus, Pott, and in general most expositors (also Winer, see 
critical remarks; on the contrary, Al. Buttmann, p. 311 (E. T., 362), prefers 
the indicative). Schneckenburger, indeed, refers καὶ ζήσωμεν to the protasis, 
but he connects it more closely with ἐὰν θελήσῃ : si Deo placet ut vivamus tum 
faciemus (similarly Grotius and Hottinger), which, however, cannot be lin- 
guistically justified. Bornemann (in Winer and Engelhardt’s N. Krit. 
Journ., vi., 1827) commences the apodosis with καὶ ζήσωμεν, and explains it: 
“Let us seek our sustenance.” — Winer correctly observes that this explana- 
tion (which Briickner erroneously ascribes to this commentary) lacks sim- 
plicity, and is not supported by biblical usage.? Bouman and others (see 
critical notes) refer ζήσωμεν naturally to the protasis, and ποιήσομεν to the 
apodosis. The meaning which this reading, unsupported by authorities, 
gives, appears to be suitable, but yet is not correct, for it would be more 
correct to have said: ἐὰν ζήσωμεν καὶ ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ. — The indicative is to be 
preferred to the conjunctive in the apodosis, as a reciprocal call to definite 
action corresponds less with the context than the resolution to do something. 

Ver. 16 expresses the conduct of those addressed in contrast to ver. 15; 
and in such a manner that the judgment upon that conduct is also expressed. 
—viv δέ, here, as frequently, where the reality in opposition to what is set 
before a person is emphasized; see 1 Cor. v. 11, xiv. 6. — καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλα- 
ζονείαις ὑμῶν. By ἀλαζονεία is to be understood the arrogant self-reliance on 
the duration of earthly prosperity; see explanation of 1 John ii. 16. De 
Wette inaccurately explains it by bragging; Theile, by arroganter facta, 
dicta: Schneckenburger, by pertness ; Wiesinger, by “ those arrogant expres- 
sions affecting complete independence;” Lange, by “vain and arrogant 
self-exaltation ;” and others differently. The plural is used, because such 
haughtiness manifests itself differently under different circumstances. --- ἐν, 
here used differently than in chap. i. 9: the ἀλαζονείαι are not the object but 
the reason of the boasting, that from which it proceeds (against Wiesinger), 


1 The indicative future after ἐάν is only be assumed, James only intending to say that 
found with absolute certainty in Luke xix. 40. we should always resolve never to speak decid- 
See Al. Buttmann, p. 192 (E. T., 222). edly, he has in later editions correctly reiin- . 

2 The opinion which Winer, in ed. 5, p. 331 f. quished. 
has expressed, that perhaps no apodosis is to 


142 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, 

and καυχᾶσθαι is designated from the standpoint of James: that haughty and 
presumptuous language in ver. 13; comp. Prov. xxvii. 1.— With the fol- 
lowing words: πᾶσα καύχησις, «.7.2., James definitely expresses his reproba- 
tion. —rowity]. Not every boasting in itself (chap. i. 9), but every boasting 
which proceeds from ἀλαζονεία, which is founded in it, and connected with it, 
is wicked. 

Ver. 17. With the general sentence: Whosoever knoweth to do good and 
doeth it not, to him it is sin, James concludes what he has hitherto said. — οὖν 
is used in the sense of conclusion, but indicates that the concluding thought 
is the result of what has gone before. — καλὸν ποιεῖν belong together, depend- 
ent on εἰδότι; not “whosoever knows the good that is to be done,” which 
would be to take ποιεῖν as an epexegetical infinitive. Wiesinger correctly 
remarks: “ καλόν is not the idea of good, in which case the article would be 
put, but that which is fair, in contrast to an action which in its moral nature 
is πονηρόν. That the discourse is concerning a sin of omission as such, to 
which this sentence is commonly referred (Bengel, Jachmann, and others), 
is rightly contested by De Wette and Wiesinger.! — ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστίν. De 
Wette: “In the sense of reckoning; John xv. 22; Luke xii. 47 f.” (so 
already Estius, also Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, and others). — αὐτῷ is here 
put, as frequently in the N. T., especially after the participle; comp. Matt. 
v. 40; see Al. Buttmann, p. 125 (E. T., 148). With regard to the connec- 
tion in which this sentence stands with the preceding, most expositors 
understand it as enforcing that to which James has formerly exhorted his 
readers, and refer εἰδότι to the knowledge which they have now received by 
the word of James. But against this is the objection, that if this expression 
be referred to all the previous exhortations (Estius: jam de omnibus satis vos 
admonui, vobis bene nota sunt), this would not be its proper place, because 
later on more exhortations follow; but if it is only referred to the last 
remark (Grotius: moniti estis a me, ignorantiam non potestis obtendere, si quid 
posthac tale dizxeritis, gravior erit culpa; so also Pott, Theile, De Wette, Wie- 
singer), we cannot see why James should have added such a remark to this 
exhortation, as it would be equally suitable to any other. It is accordingly 
better to refer εἰδότι to the already existing knowledge of the subject just 
treated of; namely, the uncertainty of human life is something so manifest, 
that those who notwithstanding talk in their presumption as if it did not 
exist, as if their life were not dependent on God, contrary to their own 
knowledge, do not that which is seemly, but that which is unseemly, and 
therefore this is so much the more sin unto them.? 


planation, maintains that the word refers to 
the better knowledge of the readers, of .evan- 


1 “ Since καλόν is the antithesis of πονηρόν, 
and not some positive good as beneficence, the 


defect of which is not πονηρόν, as De Wette 
correctly remarks, μὴ ποιοῦντι does not merely 
signify a sin of omission, but the omission of 
καλόν is necessarily a doing of πονηρόν." 

2 When Lange, in arguing agninst this ex- 


gelical behavior in general, the definite con- 
nection of thought, in which here’ the general 
sentence is placed, is not properly considered 
by him, 


CHAP. V. 143 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 4. Instead of εἰσεληλύθασιν the form εἰσελῆλυθαν is, with Tisch. and 
Lachm., to be preferred (on this form see Ph. Buttm., Ausfihrl. Gr. Gr., ὃ 87, 8, 
Note 5, and Winer, p. 70 ἢ, [E. T., 93]).— Ver. 5. The ὡς of the Rec. (after 
G, K, etc.) before ἐν ἡμέρᾳ is, according to the testimonies of A, B, &, to be 
regarded as an explanatory addition, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be left 
out; so also Wiesinger, Lange, Briickner; Reiche and Bouman, however, judge 
otherwise. — Ver. 7. The Rec. after the second ἕως has the particle ἄν (soin 8 
and many min.). Tisch. has omitted it, as, according to his statement, it is not 
found in A, B, 6, K, ete.; Lachm. has retained it (according to Tischendorf’s 
note: ex errore); so also Buttmann, who adduces no authority for its omission. 
Already Griesbach regarded ἄν as suspicious. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted 
ὑετόν: it is in A, G, K, etc., but is wanting in B, δὲ, etc.; its addition is easily 
explained, particularly as in the LXX. it is never wanting with πρώϊμος καὶ 
ὄψιμος. -- Ver. 9. The address ἀδελφοί, in A, B, ete. (Lachm. Tisch.), stands 
before, in 6, &, etc. (Rec.), after κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων: in K, ete., it is entirely wanting. 
Instead of κατακριθῆτε the simple verb κριθῆτε is, with Griesbach, Scholz, Lachm., 
Tisch., to be read, according to almost all authorities; so also the article ὁ 
before κριτῆς (which in the Rec. is wanting, against almost all authorities) is 
to be adopted.— Ver. 10. The address according to the Rec. is ἀδελφοί μου 
(6, K, 8, etc.); in A, B, etc., μον is wanting (Lachm. Tisch.); its correct posi- 
tion is after λάβετε, not after xaxorafeiac, —Instead of κακοπαθείας, § alone reads 
καλοκαγαθίας. ---- Before τῷ ὀνόματι, B, 8, etc., have the preposition ἐν (Lachm.): 
a correction apparently for the sake of simplification. —s alone omits τῷ. --α 
Ver. 11. It is difficult to decide whether we are to read, with the Rec. and Tisch., 
ὑπομένοντας (G, K, ete.), or, with Lachm. and Wiesinger, ὑπομείναντας (A, B, &, 
etc.); yet the reading of the Rec. appears to have arisen from an endeavor to 
generalize the reference of the idea: Bouman certainly judges otherwise. — 
The Rec. εἴδετε, after B* (teste Majo), K, &, etc., Oecumenius (Lachm.), is as 
a correction to be changed for the more difficult reading idere, attested by A, 
B, 6, ete. (Tisch.). — After ἐστιν the Rec. has ὁ κύριος, according to A, B (in B, 
however, the article is wanting), δὲ, several min., vss., etc. (Lachm.); Griesbach 
regarded it as suspicious, and Tisch. has omitted it, after C, K, many min., etc. ; 
the omission can easily be explained from the fact that κυρίου directly precedes 
(so also Lange; Bouman wavers).— Ver. 12. The reading εἰς ὑπόκρισιν (Ed. 
Steph., after G, K, etc.) has probably arisen from the original ὑπὸ κρίσιν, these 
two words being taken as one, and then a preposition placed before them. — 
Ver 14. The αὐτόν after ἀλείψαντες is wanting in B; it was omitted as being 
self-evident. — Lachm. and Tisch. have, after A and some min., left out the 
article τοῦ before κυρίου: yet G, K, δὲ, many min., etc., attest its genuineness; in 
B also κυρίου is wanting; nevertheless Buttmann has received it, but without 
the article. — Ver. 16. The reading of the Rec. is ἐξομολογεῖσθε ἀλλήλοις τὰ 


144 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 
παραπτώματα, καὶ εὔχεσθε, k.T.A, (Tisch.); instead of which A, B read ἐξομολογεῖσθε 
οὗν ἀλλήλοις τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ προσεύχεσθε, k.7.A. (Lachm.); for οὖν also K, δὲ, several 
min., Vulg., etc., testify: accordingly οὖν is to be considered as genuine; yet 
precisely this οὖν might mislead one to find in this verse an extension of the 
thought going before, and on this account to change the new expressions 
with the preceding, and thus, instead of παραπτώματα, to put again ἁμαρτίας, 
and instead of εὐχεσθε, for which also δὲ testifies, to put again προσεύχεσθε, 
whereas the opposite change cannot be well explained. — Ver. 18. The Ree. 
ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν is found in B, G, K, almost all min., ete. (Tisch.); A, on the con- 
trary, has ἔδωκεν ὑετόν (Lachm.); so also δὲ, but with τόν before ὑετόν. It is 
possible that this change was occasioned by the following ἐβλάστησεν τὸν καρπόν. 
—Ver. 19. Tisch. has omitted the pronoun yov after ἀδελφοί, yet the most 
important authorities, A, B, K, 8, etc., attest its genuineness. —® alone has, 
instead of the simple τῆς ἀληθείας, the combination τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας. ---- Ver. 20. 
The reading γινώσκετε in B is occasioned by the address ἀδελφοί, Instead of the 
Rec. puy7v, after G, K, many min. (Tisch.), Lachm., and Buttm. have adopted 
ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ. This αὐτοῦ is found in A, δὲ, some min., vss., etc. B has it, prob- 
ably by an error of the scribe, not after ψυχήν, but after θανάτου. --- B has as 
subscription ᾿Ιακώβου; A, Ἰακώβου ἐπιστολῆ; others differently. 


Ver. 1. That here the same persons are meant as in chap. iv. 18, and 
not others, has already been observed on that passage: by dye νῦν, the dye νῦν 
of that passage is again resumed.! —o/ πλούσιοι]. See chap. i. 10, ii. 6,7; the 
expression is not to be taken in a symbolical, but in its literal, meaning 
(against Lange). —xAaboate ὀλολύζοντες, x.7.A.]. κλαύσατε is not here to be 
understood, as in chap. iv. 9, of the tears of repentance (Estius, Hornejus, 
Laurentius, De Wette, and others), for there is no intimation of a call to 
repentance. Correctly, Calvin: falluntur qui Jacobum hic exhortari ad poeni- 
tentiam divites putant; mihi simplex magis denuntiatio judicii Dei videtur, qua 
eos terrere voluit absque spe veniae.2 James already sees the judgment coming 
upon the rich, therefore the call κλαύσατε; that: for which they should weep 
are the ταλαιπωρίαι which threatened them.? — The imperative is not here used 
instead of the future (Semler: stilo prophetico imperat, ut rem certissimam 
demonstret, FLEBITIS; Schneckenburger: aoristus imperativi rem mox certoque 
eventuram designat), but is to be retained in its full force. The imperative 
“expresses not what they will do, but what they shall even now do, because 
their ταλαιπωρίαι are nigh. The union of the imperative κλαύσατε with the 
participle ὀλολύζοντες is not an imitation of the frequent combination of 
the finite verb with the infinite absolute of the same verb in the Hebrew 


1 Whilst De Wette, Wiesinger, and others 
understand by the rich here addressed Chris- 
tians, Stier has correctly recognized that such 
are here addressed ‘“‘ who are outside of the 
Christian Church,” namely, those already men- 
tioned in chap. ii. 6, 7, who practise violence 
on you, the confessors of the Lord of glory. 
His remark is also striking: ““ ΤῸ them James 
predicts as a prophet, and entirely in the style 
of the old prophets, the impending judgment.” 

2 Wiesinger indeed concedes the point to 


Calvin, but only in words; for ‘‘the design of 
James, as in the case of the prophets of the 
O. T., is certainly nothing else than that of 
moving them by such a threat if possible yet 
to turn.” If James has this design in these 
words, he has certainly not indicated it. 

8 That James by this intends the end of 
the Roman Empire (Hengstenberg), is proved 
neither from the Epistle of Peter, nor from 
Rey. xviii., nor from any other indications in 
this Epistle. 


CHAP. V. 2. 145 


(Schneckenburger), since here two different verbs are united together (De 
Wette, Wiesinger); also ὀλολύζειν has not the same meaning as κλαίειν, but, 
as expressive of a more vehement affection, is added for the sake of strength. 
ὀλολύζειν frequently in the O. T., Isa. xiii. 6, xiv. 31, xv. 3 (ὀλολύζετε μετὰ 
κλαυθμοῦ), and in other places, and indeed chiefly used in reference to the 
impending divine judgment (Isa. xiii. 6: ὀλολύζετε, ἐγγὺς γὰρ ἡμέρα κυρίου). 
Calvin: est quidem et suus poenitentiae luctus, sed qui mixtus consolatione, non 
ad ululatum usque procedit. — ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν]. For your miseries, i.e., 
the miseries destined for you, namely, the miseries of the judgment; see ver. 3: 
ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ; ver. 7: ἡ παρουσία τοῦ xvpiov. Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, 
Mill, Benson, Michaelis, Stier, Lange, Bouman, refer this to the then im- 
pending destruction of Jerusalem; they are so far right, as the destruction 
of Jerusalem and the last judgment had not as yet been distinguished in 
representation ;1 but it is incorrect to refer it to the judgment itself, rather 
than to the miseries which will precede the advent of Christ; or, with Hottinger, 
to find here only a description of the inconstancy of prosperity. — ταῖς imepyo- 
μέναις, not 86. ὑμῖν (Luther: your misery which will come upon you; so also 
De Wette, Lange, and others), but the impending, already threatening miseries ; 
comp: Eph. ii. 7. 

Ver. 2. Description of the judgment destroying all riches: ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν 
σέσηπεν. In a prophetical manner the future is described as having already 
taken place (Hottinger, Schneckenburger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, 
and others). By πλοῦτος is not here—as Estius, Raphelius, Wolf, Semler, 
Gebser, Bouman, on account of σέσηπεν think — to be understood such things 
(fruit, ete.) as undergo literal rottenness, but is to be understood generally ; 
and σέσηπε as a figurative expression denotes generally the destruction to 
which riches are abandoned. The explanation of Calvin is incorrect: hic 
immensa divitum rapacitas perstringitur, dum supprimunt, quicquid undecunque 
possunt ad se trahere, ut inuliliter in arca computrescat (similarly Hornejus, 
Laurentius, Grotius, Bengel, Theile 3); James “does not here intend to give 
the natural result of covetousness, and thus the reason of the judgment, but 
the effect of the judgment breaking forth” (Wiesinger).? James describes 
the reason from ver. 4 and onwards. — The verb ofzw, to cause to rot, in the 
passive and second perfect to corrupt, is in the N T. ἀπ. Aey., but often 
occurs in the LXX.; comp. Job xxxiii. 21, xl. 7; as here in a general sense 
(= φθείρεσθαι) it is found in Ecclus. xiv. 19. --- καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν, x.7.A. The 
general idea πλοῦτος is here and in what follows specialized. — σητόβρωτος, 


jam facta sunt eorumque, quae pro justa Dei 
retributione adhuc fient.”” 


1 Wiesinger : ‘* The question whether James 
thought on the destruction of Jerusalem, or on 


the advent of Messiah, is an anachronism; for 
to him both of these events occur together.” 

2 Theile, who takes the preterite in its literal 
sense, thus explains the passage: “‘divitiae a 
vobis coacervatae perierunt nulla vestra ali- 
orumque utilitate .. . atque ideo vos coram 
judice perdent. Ita causa additur istarum cala- 
mitatum perferendi, gravi oppositione eorum 
quae per absurda et impia ipsorum avaritia 


8 In agreement with his explanation of 
πλούσιοι, Lange understands also πλοῦτος in 
a symbolical sense, namely, the externalized 
Judaistic righteousness — ‘‘ connected, of 
course, with worldly prosperity.” His asser- 
tion is also incorrect, that here not the last 
judgment, but “the natural immanent judg- 
ments of sinners” are meant. 


146 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


moth-eaten, in the N. T. dz. Aey., does not occur in the classics, but in Job 
xiii. 20, LXX.: ὥσπερ ἱμάτιον σητόβρωτον ; comp. Isa. li. 8. σκωληκόβρωτος in 
Acts xii. 23 is similarly formed. 

Ver. 3. Continuation of the description of the judgment: ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν 
καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος. a further specification of riches. κατίωται, in the N. T. ἅπ. Aey. 
(Ecclus. xii. 10), equivalent to the simple verb, only in a stronger significa- 
tion. Correctly, Hornejus: loquitur populariter, nam aurum proprie aeruginem 
non contrahit ; so in the Epistle of Jeremiah 11, where it is said of gold and 
silver images: οὐ διασώζονται amd ἰοῦ; see also in the same, ver. 23. With too 
minute accuracy, Bretschneider justifies the use of the verb here, that we are 
to think on gold and silver vessels which are alloyed with copper (similarly 
Bouman). It is no less incorrect, with Pott, to weaken the idea κατίωται, 
that it is to be understood only of amisso auri et argenti splendore, de mutato 
auri colore ex flavo in viridem ; against this is ὁ ἰός directly following. Wie- 
singer thinks that because κατίωται is here used figuratively, it is a matter of 
indifference that rust does not affect gold; but the ideas must suit each 
other in the figurative expression. The verb is rather here to be justified 
by the fact that since rust settles on metals generally, James in his vivid 
concrete description did not scrupulously take into consideration the differ- 
ence of metals, which, however, is not to be reckoned, with De Wette, as a 
“poetical exaggeration.” 1— καὶ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν (namely, τοῦ χρυσοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀργύρου), 
εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμὶν ἔσται. Most expositors agree with the explanation of Oecu- 
menius: καταμαρτυρήσει ὑμῶν, ἐλέγχων τὸ ἀμετάδοτον ὑμῶν ; accordingly, “The rust 
which has collected on your unused gold and silver will testify to your hard- 
ness, and that to your injury = κατ᾽ ὑμῶν." But since the preceding κατίωται 
describes the judgment overtaking earthly glory, ἐός can only be understood 
with reference to it; correctly, Wiesinger: “the rust is a witness of their 
own destruction; in the destruction of their treasures they see depicted 
their own.”? Augusti superficially explains it: “will convince you that all 
riches are transitory.” After their riches are destroyed, the judgment seizes 
upon themselves; therefore καὶ φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν. The subject is ὁ ἰός, 
“the corroding rust seizes also them, and will eat their flesh” (Wiesinger). 
‘The figurative expression, although bold and peculiar, is not unsuitable, 
‘since iéc is considered as an effect of judgment. φάγεται is not the present 
((Schneckenburger), but in the LXX. and N. T. the ordinary future for 
«ἔδεται; see Buttmann, Ausf. Gr. Sprach., § 114 (E. T., 58), under ἐσθίω; 
Winer, p. 82 (E. T., 89). The object τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν belonging to φάγεται is 
meither = ὑμᾶς (Baumgarten), nor yet in itself indicates “bloated bodies” 
(Augusti, Pott: corpora lautis cibis bene pasta) ; also Schneckenburger lays 
too much stress on the expression, explaining it: emphatice, quum ejusmodi 
homines nihil sint nisi σάρξ. According to usage, ai σάρκες denotes the fleshy 
parts of the body, therefore the plural is also used with reference to one indi- 


1 Lange strangely thinks that it is here in- as for the glory of Israel to be as corrupted 
tended to bring out the unnatural fact that the as the glory of other nations corrupts, which 
princes of Israel are become rebellious and may be compared to base metals,”’ 
companions of thieves: “It is as unnatural 2 Stier incorrectly understands by rust ‘‘ the 
for gold and silver to be eaten up with rust, guilt of sin which cleaves to mammon.” 


CHAP. V. 4. 147 
vidual; comp. 2 Kings ix. 36: καταφάγονται of κύνες τὰς σάρκας ᾿Ιεζάβελ;; further, 
Lev. xxvi. 29; Judith xvi. 17; Rev. xix. 18, 21; in definite distinction from 
bones, Mie. iii. 2,3. It is to be remarked that in almost all these passages 
the same verb is united with the noun.!' The context shows that what is 
spoken of is not “the consuming of the body by care and want” (Erasmus, 
Semler, Jaspar, Morus, Hottinger, Bouman), but the punishment of the 
divine judgment (Calvin, Grotius, Pott, Schneckenburger, De Wette, Wie- 
singer, and others). The words ὡς zip may be united either with what goes 
before or with what follows. Most expositors prefer the first combination ; 
yet already A, the Syriac version (where ὡς is wanting), and Oecumenius in 
his commentary put a stop after ὑμῶν. Grotius, Knapp, and Wiesinger, con- 
sidering this construction as correct, accordingly explain it: tanquam ignem 
opes istas congessetis ; Wiesinger states as a reason for this, that without the 
union with ὡς zip the words ἐθησαυρίσατε, x.7.2., give too feeble a meaning. 
But this is not the case, since the chief stress rests on ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (SO 
also Lange); also James could not well reckon riches as a fire of judgment. 
Besides, in the O. T. the judgment is frequently represented as a devouring 
consuming fire, which was sufficient to suggest to James to add ὡς zip to 
φάγεται.Σ The sentiment is: After the judgment has overtaken the wealth of 
the rich, it will attack themselves. Kern gives the sentiment in an unsatis- 
factory manner: “ The destruction of that which was every thing to the rich 
will punish him with torturing sorrow, as if fire devoured his flesh.” That 
the ταλαιπωρίαι already draw near is said in ver. 1, and James by the words 
ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις indicates that the judgment is close at hand, so 
that this time is the last days directly preceding the judgment; accordingly, © 
the heaping-up of treasure appears as something so much the more wicked. 
Estius, Calvin, Laurentius, and others incorrectly supply to the verb the word 
ὀργήν in accordance with Rom. ii. 5 (comp. Prov. i. 18). The object to be 
supplied to θησαυρίζειν, which is often used absolutely (comp. Luke xii. 21; 
2 Cor. xii. 14; Ps. xxxviii. 7), is contained in the verb itself, and also follows 
from what has preceded. The preposition ἐν is not used instead of εἰς, and 
ἔσχαται ἡμέραι are not the last days of life (Wolf: accumulavistis divitias extremae 
vitae parti provisuri; Morus: cumulastis opes sub finem vitae vestrae), but the 
last times which precede the advent of Christ (ver. 7), not merely the final 
national judgment (Lange). Jachmann most erroneously takes the sentence 
as interrogative: Have ye collected your (spiritual) treasures on the day (i.e., 
for the day) of judgment, in order to exhibit them ? 

Ver. 4. Description of the sins of the rich to the end of ver. 6, by reason 


1 Although σάρκες in itself indicates only 
flesh according to its separate parts, yet the 
expression is here chosen in order to name 
in a concrete manner that which is carefully 
nourished by the rich. According to Lange, 
ai σάρκες are “ the externals of religious, civil, 
and individual life; ” and the thought of James 
is that ‘‘the rotten fixity described as rust in 
its last stage transforms itself in the fire of a 
revolutionary movement”! 


2 See Ps. xxi. 10, LXX.: καταφάγεται αὐτοὺς 
πῦρ; Isa. x. 16,17, xxx. 27 (ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θυμοῦ ws 
πῦρ ἔδεται); Ezek. xv. 7; Amos y. 6. Pott: 
“Aerugo describitur, quasi invadat membra di- 
vitum, eaque quasi, ut metallum, arrodat atque 
consumat et quidem... ὡς πῦρ, tanquam 
flamma membra quasi circumlabens carnem- 
que lento dolore depascens.” 


148 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 
of which they become liable to the judgment. The first sin mentioned is 
their injustice toward those who work for them. — idod, an interjection often 
occurring in the N. T. to draw attention to the object in question. — τῶν 
ἐργατῶν, emphatically put first; comp. the proverb: ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ 
αὑτοὺ (1 Tim. v. 18). τῶν ἀμησάντων (ἀμᾷν = θερίζειν, in the N. T. ἅπ. dey.) τὰς 
χώρας ὑμῶν ; χώρα = fields, as in Luke xii. 16; John iv. 35. — In the following 
words, expositors conjoin dq’ ὑμῶν with ἀπεστερημένος 3} whilst they either 
explain ἀπό = ὑπό, or, as Wiesinger, retaining the distinction of the prepo- 
sitions, observes, that “not the direct origin, but the proceeding of the act 
of robbery from them, is indicated” (comp. Winer, p. 332 (E. T., 464); Al. 
Buttmann, p. 280 [E. T., 826]). But it would be more suitable to join 
ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν to κράζει (so also Lange); the kept-back hire crieth from the place 
where it is.2 The chief stress is put on 6 ἀπεστερημένος ; the same kind of 
conjunction as in chap. iv. 14. The injury of our neighbor, by diminished 
payment or withholding of the wages due to him, was expressly forbidden 
in the law.2— κράζει. Calvin: vindictam quasi alto clamore exposcit; comp. 
Gen. iv. 10.—In the following words it is stated that the cry has been heard 
by God.* By the designation of God as κυρίου σαβαώθ, His power as the Lord 
of the heavenly hosts is emphasized; the reference occurring in the O. T. 
likewise to the earthly hosts is here evidently not admissible (against Lange); 
it is the transference of the Hebrew MI8I¥ 117’, often occurring in the LXX., 
particularly in Isaiah; in other places the LXX. have κύριος παντοκράτωρ, 
2 Sam. v. 10, vii. 27, or κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων, Ps. xxiv. 10.— James, in his 
graphic style, instead of the general word “laborer,” mentions specially the 
“reapers, not on account of their multitude (De Wette), but because their 
laborious work in the sweat of their brow most strongly represents the work 
which is worthy of wages. Thus Calvin not incorrectly observes: quid est 
indignius quam eos, qui panem ex suo labore nobis suppeditant, inedia et fame 
conficere? It is more remote to explain it thus: “because selfish hard- 
heartedness is here most sharply stated, when even the joy of the harvest 
does not induce them to give to the poor their hardly-earned portion” 
(Brickner).> ° 

Ver. 5. A second sin of the rich, namely, their luxurious and gluttonous 
life, which forms a sharp contrast to the toilsome life of the laborers. — 
érpudjoate . . . ἐσπαταλήσατε, Synonymous terms: τρυφᾶν, in the N. T. dz. λεγ.» 
in the LXX., Neh. ix. 25; Isa. Ixvi. 11 (Isa. lvii. 4). σπαταλᾷν, only here 


1 ἀποστερέω, to keep hack. Plato, Gorg. 
519c.; so also LXX. Mal. iii. 5; Ecclus. xxxiv. 
27. 

2 Comp. Gen. iv. 10: φωνὴ αἵματος . . . 
Boa... ἐκ τῆς γῆς; Exod. ii. 23: ἀνέβη ἡ Bon 
αὐτῶν πρὸς Tov Θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων. 

3 Comp. Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14; Jer. 
xxii. 18; particularly also Mal. 111. 5: ἔσομαι 
μάρτυς ἀποστεροῦντας 
μισθὸν μισθωτοῦ; comp. also Job xxxi. 38, 
89; Tob. iv. 14; Ecclus. xxxiv. 27 (ἐκχέων 
αἷμα ὃ ἀποστερῶν μισθὼν μισθιου)»- 


ταχὺς ἐπὶ . . .- τοὺς 


4 Comp. on this expression, particularly 
Ps. xviii. 7; Isa. v. 9: ἠκούσθη εἰς τὰ ὦτα 
κυρίου σαβαὼθ. ταῦτα; besides Gen. xviii. 21, 
xix. 13; Exod. ii. 23 f., iii. 9, xxii. 22 f.; 2Sam. 
xxii. 7, and other passages. 

5 Here also Lange comes in with his sym- 
bolical interpretation, understanding by the 
harvest ‘‘ the time when the theocratic seed of 
God in Israel has ripened unto the harvest 
of God,” and by the reapers ‘‘the apostles 
and first Christians.” 


CHAP. V. δ. 149 


and in 1 Tim. v. 6; in the LXX., Ezek. xvi. 49; Amos vi. 4, and other 
places. Hottinger thus states the distinction between them: τρυφᾷν delicia- 
rum est et exquisitae voluptatis ; σπαταλᾶν luxuriae atque prodigalitatis ; comp. 
the description of the rich man in Luke xvi. 19. These and the following 
verbs are in the aorist, not ‘“ because the conduct of the rich is described as 
viewed from the day of judgment” (first edition of this commentary; simi- 
larly also Wiesinger), for “this does not suit the present ἀντιτάσσεται (Gunkel), 
but because James will mark the present conduct as a constant occurrence. 
The addition ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς forms a sharp contrast to the preceding εἰς τὰ dra 
κυρίου σαβαώθ. Whilst the Lord in heaven hears the complaints of the unjustly 
oppressed, the rich on earth enjoy their lusts, undisturbed by the wrath of 
God, which shall be revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and 
unrighteousness of men (Rom. i. 18). ---- ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν does not 
add a new idea to the preceding, but brings forward the fact that the rich 
in their luxurious living find the satisfaction of the desires of their heart. 
Luther’s translation: “Ye have pastured your heart,” does not sufficiently 
correspond to the idea τρέφειν ; something bad is evidently denoted by it. 
Since τρέφειν is literally “to make firm, thick,” it is best here to render it by 
“to satiate.” Other expositors translate it by “to fatten;” Lange, by “to 
make fat.” τὰς καρδίας is equivalent neither to τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν nor to ὑμᾶς; 
comp. Acts xiv. 17, and Meyer on that passage;1 Winer, p. 141 (E. T., 156). 
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς corresponds to the preceding ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. These last 
times are designated by James with reference to the rich as ἡμέρα σφαγῆς, the 
day of slaughter, because the sentence of death, which they have incurred, 
will be directly executed upon them at the approach of the παρουσία of Christ 
(comp. ver. 7) and the judgment; so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, only 
the latter arbitrarily understands by the day of slaughter, the day of Israel’s 
judgment, comprehending the time from the death of Christ to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. This designation of the day of judgment is also found 
in the O. T., particularly Jer. xii. 3, LXX.: ἄγνισον -αὐτοὺς εἰς ἡμέραν σφαγῆς 
αὐτῶν; xxv. 34. By the reading ὡς before ἐν ἡμέρᾳ of, ἃ Comparison occurs, 
namely, with the beasts who are to be slaughtered, so that Pott after ὡς 
directly supplies θρέμματα. De Wette explains it: “Ye have pastured your 
hearts as in the day of slaughter; i.e., according to the comparison with 
beasts, who on the day on which they are to be slaughtered feed carelessly 
and devour greedily;” so also Bouman. But the idea “carelessly and 
greedily ” is introduced; also the comparison is unsuitable, since beasts on 
the day of slaughter do not eat more greedily than on other days. Other 
expositors, as Wolf, Augusti, Hottinger, and others, take év as equivalent to 
εἰς; Hottinger: corpora vestra aluistis, tanquam pecora, quae saginari solent ad 
mactationem ; but this change of prepositions is arbitrary. Several expos- 
itors, as Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Laurentius, Bengel, and others, understand 
by ἡμέρα σφαγῆς the day of sacrifice; Calvin: addit similitudinem, sicut, etc., 
quia solebant in sacrificiis solemnibus liberalius vesci quam pro quotidiano more ; 


1 Meyer: ‘The heart is filled with food, the pleasant feeling of satisfaction, is in the 
inasmuch as the sensation of being filled, heart.”’ 


150 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


the meaning then is: ἰοία vila vestra est quasi perpetuum epulum ac festum con- 
tinuum (Laurentius); but that expression never elsewhere occurs in this 
signification. Had James thought on the sacrificial feast or the like, he 
would have expressed it more definitely; besides, by this explanation the 
reference to the judgment is entirely wanting, and only the luxurious life is 
described; but this contradicts the character of the whole section, for if 
James, from ver. 4 onwards, assigns the reason of ταλαιπωρίαι, he does this 
not without an earnest pointing to the judgment and its nearness. 

Ver. 6. The third sin, the persecution of the just, by which the ungodliness 
of their disposition is most strongly indicated. By δίκαιος is not meant Christ 
(Oecumenius,! Bede, Grotius, Lange), for, on the one hand, there is nothing 
in the context to indicate this, and, on the other hand, the present ὀντιτάσσεται 
is opposed to it; also, if this were the case, the perfect must be put instead of 
the aorist, as here only one deed is mentioned, not, as before, a repetition 
of deeds. Wiesinger, in an unsatisfactory manner, explains τὸν δίκαιον by the 
innocent. Not merely the unjust conduct of the πλούσιοι founded on covet- 
ousness is here intended to be described, but the reason of persecution is 
implied in the expression τὸν δίκαιον itself; comp. Wisd. of Sol. 11. 12-20; 
as also 1 John iii. 12. The singular is to be taken collectively, and the 
expression absolutely, as in ver. 16. Several expositors assume that the verbs 
κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε, are not meant in their literal sense; but evidently 
without reason. κατεδικάσατε shows that here primarily judges are meant; 
yet the accusers, if these are to be distinguished from them, are not to be 
considered as excluded, since their accusation points to nothing else than to 
a sentence of condemnation.?, The asyndeton sharpens the climax, which 
is contained in the addition of the second verb to the first. Bouman directs 
attention to the paronomasia between κατεδικάσατε and δίκαιον. --- οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται 
opposes the calm patience of the just to the violence of the wicked: he doth 
not resist (comp. Acts xviii. 6; Rom. xiii. 4; Jas. iv.6). Schneckenburger: 
οὐκ ἀντιτ. sine copula et pronomine ponderose additur. The present is explained 
from the fact that in what goes before not a single instance, but the con- 
tinued conduct of the rich is described, and opposed to this is placed the 
similarly continued conduct of the δίκαιο. Lange, by the reference of τὸν 
δίκαιον to Christ, misinterprets the force of the present, arbitrarily attributing 
to the verb the meaning: “ He stands no longer in your way; He does not 
stop you (in the way of death); He suffers you to fill up your measure.” — 
It is unnecessary to supply in thought ὅς or γάρ; also οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται is not to 
be converted into οὐ δύναται ἀντιτάσσεσθαι (Pott). For the correct construction 


1 Occumenius, indeed, says: ἀναντιῤῥήτως τὴν ἐμβίωσιν; but he maintains without reason 
τό, ἐφον. τ. δικ., ἐπὶ Tov Χριστὶν ἀναφέρεται; that the death of the just is not to be considered 
but he thinks that James likewise understands / as the direct design of the πλούσιοι, but only as 
by this: τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς Ta ὅμοια παρὰ τῶν the result of their oppressions. Also De Wette 
Ιουδαίων παθόντας; and he closes with the thinks that the killing is not to be understood 
remark: ἴσως δὲ καὶ προφητικῶς τὸ περὶ ἑαυτὸν literally, but of extreme violence, deprivation 
ὑπεμφαίνει πάθος. of liberty, and the like. This interpretation 

2 Wiesinger correctly observes that φονεύειν is, however, occasioned by the assumption 
is here not to be explained according to Ecclus. that the rich are Christians. 

XXXi. 21: φονεύων sov πλησίον ὃ ἀφαιρουμενος 


CHAP. V. 7. 151 


there is no reason, with Bentley, for conjecturing ὁ κύριος instead of οὐ, or, 
with Benson, to take the sentence as interrogative, and. to supply ὁ κύριος. 
The object of the addition of the clause is not so much the more strongly tc 
mark the violent conduct of the rich, as rather by implication to point to the 
proximity of the vengeance of God, who interests Himself in the suffering 
just, as is definitely asserted in the previous verses. With this verse are to 
be compared, besides the already cited passage in Wisd. of Sol. ii. 12-20, 
particularly Amos ii. 6,7, v. 12 (καταπατοῦντες δίκαιον), viii. 4, which testify 
for the correctness of the explanation here given. : 

Ver. 7. Exhortation to the brethren to patient waiting, on to ver. 11. — 
μακροθυμῆσατε οὖν]. μακροθυμεῖν ; literally, to be long-suffering to those who do 
an injury; opposed to ὑξυθυμεὶν ; see Meyer on Col. i. 11. On its distinction 
from ὑπομένειν, see on 2 Tim. 111. 11; here the meaning appears to run into 
that of ὑπομένειν ; comp. the following μακροθυμὼν and ver. 8; but it is here 
well put, in order to exclude the feeling of disquieting doubt; comp. Heb. 
vi. 12, 15. —ovv refers to the preceding sentiment (also to that indicated in 
οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν), that the judgment is near (De Wette, Wiesinger).! — 
ἀδελφοὶ, contrast to the πλούσιοι. ---- Patience is to endure ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ 
kupiov.. On ἕως as a preposition, see Winer, p. 418 (E. T., 470). As regards 
the meaning which ἕως here has, Schneckenburger correctly observes: non 
tempus tantum sed rem quoque indicat, qua ἡ θλῖψις μακροθύμως toleranda tollatur. 
By παρουσία τοὺ κυρίου, according to constant Christian usage, is to be under- 
stood the advent of Christ (Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Bouman), not the 
coming of God (Augusti, Theile, De Wette); although James by κύριος 
chiefly designates God, yet he also uses this name for Christ, chap. ii. 1. — 
The exhortation is strengthened by the reference to the patient waiting of 
the husbandman (the same figure in Ecclus. vi. 19). As he waits (ἐκδέχεται) 
for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with reference to it, until 
it has received the early and latter rain, so should the Christian patiently 
wait for the precious fruit of his labor, for which he hopes. The καρπός is 
designated as τίμιος, because it is its preciousness which occasions the paxpo- 
θυμίαβ. By μακροθυμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, éxdéxetalis more definitely stated, since that 
verb does not necessarily include in itself the idea here intended. On ἐπ’ 
αὐτῷ = in reference to the καρπάς, comp. Luke xviii. 7. —6é γεωργός is not the 
subject of λάβῃ (Luther), but ὁ καρπός (Stier). —The question whether we 
are here to read ἕως with or without ἄν (see critical remarks) cannot be an- 
swered from the usage of the N. T.; see Matt. x. 11, and, on the other hand, 
Luke xii. 59. According to Tischendorf, the authorities are decisive for the 
omission of ἄν. See Al. Buttmann, p. 198 f. (E. T., 230 f.).8 — (ὑετὸν) πρώϊ- 
μον καὶ ὄψιμον. the autumnal and spring rains; see Deut. xi. 14; Jer. v. 26; 
Joel ii. 23; Zech. x. 1: not “the morning and the evening rain” (Luther); 
see Winer’s Realwérterb. under “ Witterung.” ὃ 


* 1 Schneckenburger correctly observes: ‘ad 2 It is peculiar that in the parallel sentences, 
judici divini propinquitatem respicit;’’ but the Exod. xv. 16; Jer. xxiii. 20, at first ἕως stands 
remark is erroneous: ‘‘ neque eam infitias, si and then ἕως ἄν. 
quis pariter versui 6 hune jungat, ita ut exem- 3 In a peculiar manner Oecumenius allegor- 


plo τῆς μακροθυμίας ad eandem animi lenitatem izing says: πρώϊμος ὑετός, ἡ ἐν νεότητι μετὰ 
usque servandam excitentur.” δακρνων μετάνοια" ὄψιμος, ἡ ἐν TH γήρᾳ. 


152 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 

Ver. 8. Resumption and completion of the exhortation. The καί after 
μακροθυμήσατε is explained from the reference to ὁ γεωργός. --- By the asynde- 
ton addition στηρίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, the conduct which is the condition of 
μακροθυμία is emphasized. Not weak, but strong hearts are able to cherish 
μακροθυμίαν ; on this expression, comp. 1 Thess. 111. 13; 1 Pet. v.10. The 
strengthening is indeed, on the one hand, an affair of God; but, on the other 
hand, it depends on the man himself, just like every thing else that is 
obtained by the man surrendering himself to the love of God working in 
him. — ὅτι 7 παρουσία, «.7.A.]. Calvin: Ne quis objiceret, nimium differri libera- 
tionis tempus, occurrit dicens, prope instare Dominum, vel (quod idem est) ejus 
adventum appropinquasse. — On the expression, comp. especially 1 Pet. iv. 7. 

Ver. 9. To the preceding exhortation a new one is added: μὴ στενάζετε, 
ἀδελφοί, κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων, Since with impatience in affliction a sinful irritability of 
the sufferers toward each other is easily conjoined. στενάζειν κατά is to be 
understood neither of invidia alienis bonis ingemiscente (Grotius), nor of impati- 
entia mutuis lamentationibus augenda ; it rather denotes the gemitus accusatorius 
(Estius, Calvin, and others), without, however, necessarily supposing a pro- 
vocatio ultionis divinae malorumque imprecatio (Theile, and similarly Calvin, 
Morus, Gebser, Hottinger, Lange, and others) united with it. Augusti in- 
correctly renders it: “Give no occasion to one another for sighing.” — From 
kat’ ἀλλήλων it does not follow that the πλούσιοι (ver. 1 ff.) belong to the 
Christian Church (against De Wette and Wiesinger) ; the reference here is: 
rather to the conduct of Christians toward each other under the oppressions 
to which they were exposed by the πλούσιοι. ---- Since στενάζειν κατά involves 
the judging of our brother, and is opposed to that love of which Paul says: 
μακροθυμεῖ, χρηστεύεται, . . . ov παροξύνεται, ov λογίζεται TO κακόν... πάντα ὑπομένει, 
James adds the admonition ἕνα μὴ κριθῆτε (comp. Matt. vii. 1), and then, for 
the purpose of strengthening the warning, points to the nearness of the 
Judge. The κριτῆς is none other than the Lord, whose παρουσία is at hand. 
As His nearness should comfort Christians in their distress, so it should 
likewise restrain them from the renunciation of love to one another (comp. 
chap. ii. 13). Incorrectly Theile: ton tam, qui impatientius ferentes certo 
puniat (quamquam nec hoc abesse potest), quam: qui vos ulciscatur, ut igitur ne 
opus quidem sit ἰδία tam periculosa impatientia (so also De Wette) ; for ὁ xpurag 
evidently points back to ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε.3 --- Οἢ πρὸ τῶν θυρὼν ἕστηκεν, 1.e., he 
stands already before the door, on the point of entering, see Matt. xxiv. 33; 
Mark xiii. 29 (Acts v. 23). 

Vv. 10, 11. Old Testament examples adduced for the sake of strengthen- 
ing the exhortation to patience. — ὑπόδειγμα λάβετε]. ὑποδειγμα (instead of the 
classical παράδειγμα) here, as frequently in the N. T. and LXX., an example, 


1 Hornejus: ‘‘ Quos ad manifestas et gravis- 
simas improborum injurias fortiter ferendas 
incitarat, eos nunc hortatur, ut etiam in mi- 
noribus illis offensis, quae inter pios ipsos 
saepe subnascuntur, vel condonandis vel dis- 
simulandis promti sint. Contingit enim, ut qui 
hostium et improborum maximas saepe con- 
tumelias et injurias aequo animo tolerant, fra- 


trum tamen offensas multo leviores non facile 
ferant.”’ 

2 Wiesinger, indeed, recognizes that the 
statement is added as a warning; but yet he 
thinks that the chief idea is: ‘* Ye may with 
perfect calmness leave the judgment to Him” 
(so also Lange). 


CHAP. V. 1. 153 


a pattern; in sense equivalent to ὑπόγραμμον, 1 Pet. ii. 21; τύπος, 2 Thess. 
111. 9 (εἰς τὸ μιμεϊσθαι). ---- τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας]. κακοπάθεια, in the 
N. T. dz. λεγ.» is not synonymous with μακροθυμία = vexationum patientia (Hot- 
tinger), but denotes suffering, affliction, synonymous with ξυμφοραί, Thuc. 
vii. 77; in 2 Mace. ii. 26, 27, it is used in a somewhat attenuated sense. 
Schneckenburger arbitrarily combines it with the following words into one 
idea = τῆς ἐν κακοπαθείᾳ μακροθυμίας ; by this combination the point of κακοπά- 
θεια is weakened. On the sentiment, see Matt. v. 12.— By the relative 
clause of ἐλάλησαν (ἐν) τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου, belonging to τοὺς προφῆτας, is indicated 
that the prophets, as servants of God, stand opposed to the world, even as 
believing Christians do. The dative τῷ ὀνόματι (see critical remark) is not 
to be explained, with Meyer (see on Matt. vii. 22), “by means of the name, 
i.e., that the name of the Lord satisfied their religious consciousness and was 
the object of their confession;” but, as is commonly understood = ἐν τῷ 
ὀνόματι κυρίου (Wiesinger: jussu et autoritate; De Wette: “by virtue of the 
name”); this is evident from the fact that the Hebrew ΠῚ DW32 137 is 
translated in the LXX. not only by ἐν (τῷ) ὀν. κυρίου (Dan. ix. 6) or by ἐπὶ 
τῷ ὄν. (Jer. xx. 9), but also by λαλεῖν τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου (Jer. xliv. 10). 

Ver. 11 assigns a new reason for the exhortation: Behold, we count happy 
them who endure ; the μακαρίζειν of them is founded on the consciousness that 
God does not leave them unrewarded (Matt. v. 12), which is clearly mani- 
fested in the life of Job, on which account James, in conclusion, refers to 
him. By the reading τοὺς ὑπομένοντας the idea is to be taken quite generally ; 
whereas by the better attested reading τοὺς ὑπομείναντας it is to be limited to 
sufferers of the past time; the latter is more in conformity with the context 
(Wiesinger). The “restricted reference” to τοὺς προφῆτας (Grotius, Baum- 
garten, Pott, Hottinger, Theile) is not to be justified. — τὴν ὑπομονὴν ᾿Ιὼβ 
ἠκούσατε]. ὑπομονῇ is not = perpessio (Storr), but the patience which Job dis- 
played both in his afflictions, and in his replies to the contradictions of his 
friends; Tob. ii. 12-15 (Vulg.; the text in the Greek ed., Tisch. reads dif- 
ferently) refers to the same example; also in Ezek. xiv. 14, 20, Job is 
mentioned as a righteous man along with Noah and Daniel. — ἠκούσατε may 
refer specially to the reading in the synagogue, but may be understood 
generally. —xat τὸ τέλος κυρίου is, according to the connection given above, 
to be referred to and explained of the issue in which the sufferings of Job 
terminated: finem, quem a Domino habuit; so that κυρίου is the genit. subj. or 
causae (2 Cor. xi. 26); thus most expositors explain it. Others, as Augustin, 
Bede, Lyra, Estius, Thomas, Pareus, Wetstein, Lange, assume that by τέλος 
κυρίου the death of Christ is to be understood. Against this is not only the 
concluding clause, but also the context, which points to the end to which 
the pious sufferer is brought by the merey of God, and on account of 
which he is accounted happy; apart altogether from the improbability 


1 Also in union with other verbs the LXX. were not decisive, yet it would be most natural 
translate ows sometimes by the simple dative ; to explain the dative τῷ ὀνόματι -- through the 
thus Exod. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 5: καλεῖν τῷ 6v6- name, by which the name of the Lord would 


ματι; Jer. xii. 16: ὀμνύειν τῷ ὃν. μου ; see also be conceived as the objective power by which 
Isa. xli. 25, xliii. 7, xlv.4.— Though this usage {Π6 prophets were induced to speak. 


154 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


that James should connect the example of Christ immediately with that 
of Job.1— With the reading εἴδετε this can only be understood of “indirect . 
seeing, namely, of clear perception by hearing” (De Wette). The better 
attested reading, however, is idere, and it can only be regarded as an over- 
sight that Wiesinger translates this idere by “ audiendo cognovistis,” as it is 
not the indicative, but the“imperative. ‘The imperative is here certainly sur- 
prising, and was on that account changed into the indicate. ‘Tischendorf has 
connected idere with what goes before, and then it is to be explained: Ye 
have heard of the patience of Job, look also at the end which the Lord gave. The 
connection with what follows would, however, be more suitable: Ye have 
heard of the patience of Job and the end which the Lord gave ; see (i.e., recognize 
from this) that the Lord is πολύσπλαγχνος and οἰκτίρμων. Such an imperative, 
introduced ἀσυνδέτως, is not foreign to the style of James; comp. chap. i. 16, 
19. With the Receptus, and also with the union of idere with τὸ τέλος κυρίου, 
ὅτι is not a particle of proof = for (De Wette, Wiesinger, Lange), since in 
the preceding words no thought is expressed which would be confirmed by 
this clause ; 2 but an objective particle that; a twofold object is joined to the 
verb, the second definitely bringing forward the point indicated in the first; 
arbitrarily Theile translates it and certainly. — The subject to ἔστιν is at all 
events ὁ κύριος, which, according to the most important authorities, is to be 
retained as genuine. — πολύσπλαγχνος is a complete am, Aey. “coined after the 
Hebrew 01 1013” (Wiesinger), which the LXX. translate πολυέλεος, see 
Exod. xxxiv. 6, etc.; in Eph. iv. 32, 1 Pet. iii. 8, is the related expression 
εὔσπλαγχνος. --- οἰκτίρμων, in the N. T. only here and in Luke vi. 86 (comp. 
Col. iii. 12: σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ), frequently in O. T.; comp. with this pas- 
sage, particularly Exod. xxxiv. 6; Ps. ciii. 8; and Ecclus. ii. 7 ff. — The 
reference to the mercy of God was to impress the readers, in their suffer- 
ings, with the hope that the reward of their patience would not fail them, 
and to encourage them to steadfast endurance. 

Ver. 12. The warning contained in this verse against swearing is in no 
other connection with the preceding than what lay in the conduct of the 
readers. The Epistle of James was occasioned by manifold faults in the 
churches, and therefore he could not conclude without referring to the incon- 
siderate swearing prevalent among them. It is as little indicated that he 
refers to the warning against abuse of the tongue (chap. iii.; Hornejus) 
as that this swearing arose from impatience, against which the preceding 
verses are directed (against Gataker, Wiesinger). How important this 

_ warning was to the author, the words πρὸ πάντων δέ show, by which it is indi- 
cated that it, of all other exhortations, is to be specially taken to heart. 
James assigns the reason of this in the words iva μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. --- The 
warning μὴ ὀμνύετε is more exactly stated in the words μῆτε τὸν οὐρανόν, μήτε 


1 In a most unsatisfactory manner Lange 
seeks to justify this, by observing that James 
‘did thus connect the example of Abraham 
with that of Rahab.”? It is ‘evidently inap- 
propriate to place together Job as “ the great 
sufferer of the Old Testament,’ with Christ 
as ‘the great sufferer of the New Testament.” 


2 Ina peculiar but highly arbitrary manner, 
Lange refers ὅτι to what directly precedes, 
uniting it with τὸ τέλος κυρίου in the sense 
that it is thereby specified what Christ was 
able to effect in entering upon His suffer- 
ings. ὦ 


CHAP. V. 12. 155 


τὴν γὴν, μῆτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον. It is to be noticed that swearing by the name of 
God is not mentioned. This is not, as Rauch along with others maintains, 
to be considered as included in the last member of the clause, but James 
with ware ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον has in view only similar formulae as the above, of 
which several are mentioned in Matt. v. 35, 86. Had James intended to 
forbid swearing by the name of God, he would most certainly have expressly 
mentioned it; for not only is it commanded in the O. T. law, in contra- 
distinction to other oaths (Deut. vi. 13, x. 20; Ps. Ixiii. 12), but also in the 
prophets it is announced as a token of the future turning of men to God 
(sa Ixv. 16; Jer. xii. 16, xxiii. 7,8). The omission of this oath shows that 
James in this warning has in view only the abuse, common among the Jews 
generally and also among his readers, of introducing in the common every- 
day affairs of life, instead of the simple yea or nay, such asseverations as 
those here mentioned; so that we are not justified in deducing from his 
words an absolute prohibition of swearing in general,! as has been done by 
many expositors of our Epistle, and especially by Oecumenius, Bede, Eras- 
mus, Gebser, Hottinger, Theile, De Wette, Neander (comp. also Meyer on 
Matt. v. 33 ff.); whereas Calvin, Estius, Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius, 
Pott, Baumgarten, Michaelis, Storr, Morus, Schneckenburger, Kern, Wie- 
singer, Bouman, Lange,? and others, refer James’s prohibition to light and 
trifling oaths. The use of oaths by heaven, etc., arises, on the one hand, 
from forgetting that every oath, in its deeper significance, is a swearing by 
God; and, on the other hand, from a depreciation of the simple word, thus 
from a frivolity which is in direct contrast to the earnestness of the Chris- 
tian disposition. The construction of ὀμνύειν with the accusative τὸν οὐρανόν, 
etc., is in accordance with classical usage, whereas the construction with ἐν 
and εἴς (in Matt.) is according to Hebraistic usage. — To the prohibition 
James opposes the command with the words ἤτω dé ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ od οὖ, 
which do not express a new exhortation (Schneckenburger), but the con- 
trast to ὀμνύειν τὸν οὐρανόν, etc. Most expositors (Theophylact, Oecumenius, 
Zwingli, Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Kern, 
Stier, and others) find here a command to truthfulness expressed; but incor- 
rectly, as in the foregoing μὴ ὀμνύετε a reference to the contrast between truth 
and falsehood is not in question at all. De Wette correctly explains it: 
“let your yea be (a simple) yea, and your nay (a simple) nay” (so also 


1 Rauch says: “One should give honor to 
the truth, and freely and without prejudice 
recognize that according to the clear words of 
the text here, as in Matt. v. 34 ff., a general 
and unconditional prohibition of all oaths is 
expressed.” To this it is replied that honor 
is given to the truth when one is not taken by 
appearance, but seeks without prejudice to 
comprehend the actual meaning. In oppo- 
silion to the view that Christ by the prohibi- 
tion of oaths, in Matt. v. 33 ff., has in view 
the ideal condition of the church, Wigsinger 
with justice observes: ‘It can no longer be 
said, in reference to our passage, that only an 


ideal requirement is expressed calculated for 
entirely different circumstances than those 
which were in reality, for there can be no 
doubt that James demands for his require- 
ment complete practice under the actual and 
not the ideal circumstances of his readers.” 

2 Lange by this understands more exactly: 
“conspiracy, which is a swearing accompanied 
by hypothetical imprecations or the giving of 
a pledge.” Moreover, his view of the design 
of the Epistle misled him to find the reason of 
this prohibition in Jewish zeal to enter into 
conspiracies, 


156 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


Estius, Piscator, Hottinger, Neander, Wiesinger, and others; comp. Al. 
Buttmann, p. 142 [E. T., 163]).1 Not the sentiment itself, but its form 
only is different from Matt. v. 87 (see Tholuck and Meyer in loco). — The 
form ἤτω (1 Cor. xvi. 22; Ps. civ. 81, LXX.) instead of ἔστω is found in 
classical Greek only once in Plato, Rep., ii. p. 361 (see Buttmann, A us/fiihri. 
Gr., § 108, Remark 15 (E. T., 49); Winer, p. 73 [E. T., 79]).— iva μὴ ὑπὸ 
κρίσιν πέσητε assigns the reason why one should not swear, but should be 
satisfied with the simple yea or nay. According to its meaning, the expres- 
sion is equivalent to iva μὴ κριθῆτε, ver. 9. There is nothing strange in πίπτειν 
ὑπό. Comp. 2 Sam. xxii. 39; Ps. xviii. 89. By κρίσις is to be understood 
judicium condemnatorium. ‘The swearing forbidden by James subjects to 
the judgment, because it is founded on and in every instance promotes 
frivolity. 

Ver. 13. If one among you suffers, let him pray; if one is of good courage, 
let him sing psalms. This exhortation stands in no assignable connection 
with what goes before. The sufferings to which ver. 7 ff. refer are those of 
persecution ; but κακοπαθεῖν has here an entirely general meaning. On ac- 
count of the following εὐθυμεῖ, many expositors (Beza, Semler, Rosenmiiller, 
Hottinger) incorrectly explain κακοπαθεὶν = “to be dejected” (Vulgate: tris- 
tatur quis). It rather means to be unfortunate, to suffer, in which aegritudo 
animi is certainly to be considered as included. Pott incorrectly takes it as 
equivalent to the following ἀσθενεῖν, which is only a particular kind of κακοπα- 
θεῖν. ---- προσεύχεσθαι denotes prayer generally ; there is no reason to limit it here 
to petition. — ψάλλειν, literally, to touch, used particularly of stringed instru- 
ments; in the LXX. the translation of 12) and Wi = to sing psalms; comp. 
‘particularly 1 Cor. xiv. 15. Both joy and sorrow should be the occasion of 
prayer to the Christian. The form of the sentence is the same as in 1 Cor. 
vii. 18, 27. Meyer: “The protases do not convey a question, being in the 
rhetorically emphatic form of the hypothetical indicative;” see Winer, p. 152 
(E. T., 169), p. 255 (E. T., 285), p. 478 (E. T., 541).? 

Ver. 14. From the general κακοπαθεῖν a particular instance, that of sick- 
ness, is selected. ἀσθενεῖν = aegrotare, as in Matt. x. 8, Luke iv. 40, and 
many other passages; the opposite: ὑγιαίνειν. --- By dodevei τις James hardly 
means any sick person, but only such a person who under the burden of 
bodily suffering also suffers spiritually, being thereby tempted in his faith. 
The sick man is to call to himself the presbyters of the congregation. προσ- 
καλεσάσθω, in the middle expresses only the reference to himself; not that the 
call is by others, which is here taken for granted. — τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλη- 
σίας, the presbyters of the congregation, namely, to which the sick man belongs. 
It is arbitrary to explain τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους as unum ex presbyteris (Estius, Ham- 
mond, Laurentius, Wolf); the whole body is meant (Wiesinger), as the article 
shows; not some of its members, as Theile considers possible. The follow- 


1 Lange would unite the two points together ; Al. Buttmann, p. 195 (KE. T., 226), rightly de- 
and he isso far not in the wrong, as James clares this to be unnecessary, but has in his 
presupposes truthfulness. edition of the N. T. adopted the same punctu- 

2 Lachmann has after the sentence contain- alion. 
ing the hypothesis put a mark of interrogation. 


CHAP. V. 15. 157 
‘ing words: καὶ προσευξάσθωσαν, x.7.A., express the object for which the pres- 
byters are to come; they are to pray over him, anointing him in the name 
of the Lord. The prayer is the chief point, “as also ver. 15 teaches: ἡ εὐχὴ 
τ. πίστεως, «.7.A.” (Wiesinger); the anointing is the act accompanying the 
prayer. én’ αὐτόν is generally inaccurately explained as equivalent to pro eo, 
pro salute ejus; ἐπί with the accusative expresses figuratively the reference 
to something, similarly as the German iiber with the accusative; thus «Aaiew 
ἐπί twa, Luke xxiii. 28. How far the author thought on a local reference, 
he who prayeth bending over the sick, or stretching forth his hands over 
him, cannot be determined; see Acts xix. 13. — With the prayer is to be 
conjoined‘ the anointing of the sick, for what purpose James does not state. 
According to Mark vi. 18, the disciples in their miracles of healing applied 
it, when at the command of Jesus they traversed the Jewish land; but the 
reason of their doing so is not given, nor at a later period is there any men- 
tion of it in the miracles of the apostles.1_ Probably James mentions the 
anointing with oil only in conformity with the general custom of employing 
oil for the refreshing, strengthening, and healing of the body,? since he 
refers the miracle not to the anointing, but to the prayer, and, presupposing 
its use, directs that the presbyters should unite prayer with it, and that they 
should perform it ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (τοῦ) κυρίου, that is, in a believing and trustful 
mention of the name of Christ (less probably of God). That ἐν τῷ dv. κυρ. 
cannot mean jussu et auctoritate Christi is evident, because there is no express 
command of Christ to employ it. Gebser incorrectly unites this particular 
with προσευξάσθωσαν ; Schneckenburger with both verbs; it belongs only to 
ἀλεΐψαντες (De Wette, Wiesinger). The question why the presbyters should 
do this is not to be answered, with Schneckenburger: quia τὸ χάρισμα ἰαμάτων 
(1 Cor. xii. 9) cum iis communicatum erat; for, on the one hand, it is an arbi- 
trary supposition that the presbyters possessed that χάρισμα, and, on the ather 
hand, there is here no mention of it; incorrectly also Pott: quia uti omnino 
prudentissimi eligebantur, sic forte etiam artis medicae peritissimi erant. Bengel 
has given the true explanation: qui dum orant, non multo minus est, quam si 
tota oraret ecclesia; and Neander: “the presbyters as organs acting in the 
name of the church.” ὃ 

Ver. 15 inentions the result of the prayer conjoined with the anointing. 
--καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως]. That the prayer of the presbyters must proceed 
from faith was not asserted in the preceding, but was evidently presupposed ; 
it is now directly characterized as such. τῆς πίστεως is gen. subj.: the prayer 


which faith offers; inaccurately Schneckenburger: preces fide plenae. πίστις 


1 Meyer in loco considers this anointing, as 
also the application of spittle on the part of 
Jesus Himself, as a conductor of the super- 
natural healing power, analogous to the laying- 
on of hands. But in this the distinction is too 
little observed, that according to general cus- 
tom oil, but not spittle, and the laying-on of 
hands, was applied to the sick. 

2 See Herzog’s Real-Encycl. on Oel, Oelung, 
Salbe. 


8 Tt is well known that the Catholic Church, 
besides Mark vi. 13, specially appeals to this 
passage in support of the sacrament of extreme 
unction. Chemnitz, in his Zramen Conc. Trid., 
has already thoroughly shown with what in- 
correctness they have done so. Even Cajetan 
and Baronius doubt whether James here treats 
of that sacrament, as he does not speak of the 
sick unto death, but of the sick generally. See 
Herzog’s Real-Encycl. on the word Oelung. 


158 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


is used here in the same signification as in chap. i. 16; it is sure confidence 
in the Lord, in reference to the case in question. Grotius, Gomarus, Schneck- 
enburger, Theile, and others define the, prayer more closely, as that of the 
presbyters and of the sick man. On the other hand, Wiesinger refers ἡ εὐχὴ 
τ. x. to προσευξάσθωσαν, accordingly the intercession of the presbyters; so also 
De Wette. This is correct; it is, however, to be observed that James has 
certainly supposed as self-evident the prayer of the sick man who called the 
elders. The following words: σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα, state the effect of the prayer 
of the presbyters. — τὸν κάμνοντα takes up again ἀσθενεὶ τις. κάμνειν, in the 
N. T. except here only in Heb. xii. 3 in a figurative sense, has even with 
classical writers very commonly the meaning to be sick. — σώσει, équivalent 
to will recover. This meaning is required by reference to τὸν κάμνοντα, and to 
the context generally; the word occurs in the same signification in Matt. 
ix. 22; Mark v. 23; John xi. 12, and elsewhere. — By the following clause: 
kal ἐγερεῖ αὐτὼν ὁ κύριος, What is said is more exactly specified; the prayer of 
faith effects σώζειν, by which the Lord (apparently Christ) on its account 
helps; ἐγείρειν, to raise up from the sick-bed, see Mark i. 31, οι; not “to raise 
up from sickness” (Lange; “to cause him to recover,” De Wette); the word 
never occurs in this meaning in the N. T.—A particular case is added to 
the general. κἂν ἁμαρτίας ἡ πεποιηκώς]. κἄν is not, as is done by most expos- 
itors, but against linguistic usage,! to be resolved by and if, but by even if 
(so also Lange). By the sins here meant are such as formed the special 
reason of the sickness. Accordingly, the meaning is: even if he has drawn 
his sickness upon himself by special sins (unsatisfactorily, Lange: “if his 
sickness has become by them very severe”). By αὶ πεποιηκώς the effect of 
the sins is represented as existing. — The apodosis ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ EXpresses 
that even in this case the healing will not fail. The forgiveness of sins is 
here. meant, which is confirmed by the removal of the special punishment 
produced by the particular sins. The explanation of Hammond is evidently 
entirely erroneous: non tam a Deo, quam a Presbyteris, qui aegroto peccata 
ipsis confitenti . . . absolutionem dare tenentur. As regards the construction 
of the sentence, κἂν πεποιηκώς may be joined to what goes before, and ἀφεθήσεται 
considered as an asyndeton addition: and the Lord will raise him up, even if 
he has committed sins . . . (for) it will be forgiven him. But the usual con- 
struction, according to which ἀφεθήσεται is simply the apodosis to κἂν, «.7.2., is 
to be preferred on account of the close connection of ideas; thus: even if he 
hath committed sins, it will be forgiven him; by which the idea is included in 
ἀφεθήσεται αὑτῷ, that he will be healed of his sickness. — τὸ πεποιηκέναι is to be 
supplied from the préceding to ἀφεθήσεται (Bengel, Theile, Wiesinger). — The 
promise (σώσει... ἐγερεῖ) 80 positively expressed by James is founded on 
his confidence in the Lord, who hears believing intercession, so that it is not 
in vain. It is certainly surprising that James gives this assurance without 
any restriction. Although we cannot say, with Hottinger: si certus et con- 
stans talium precum fuisset eventus, nemo unquam mortuus esset, since the nature 


1 In no passage of the N. T., except per- where the meaning though, even. The N.T. 
haps Luke xiii. 9, is the καί in κἄν the simple usage is here in conformity with the classical ; 
copula uniting two sentences, but it hasevery- | see Pape on the word κᾶν. 


; CHAP. V. 16. 159 


of the condition, on which James makes the event dependent, is not consid- 
ered; on the one hand, it is self-evident that true πίστις includes the humble 
πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σύ (Matt. xxvi. 39); and, on the other hand, it is 
to be observed that although James here evidently speaks of bodily sickness 
and its cure, yet he uses such expressions as point beyond the sphere of the 
corporeal to the spiritual, so that even when the result corresponds not to 
the expectation in reference to the bodily sickness, yet the prayer of faith 
does not remain unanswered in the higher sense.} 

Ver. 16 annexes a new thought to what has been said, which is, however, 
as the strongly attested οὖν shows, in close connection. From the special 
order James infers a general injunction, in which the intervening thought is 
to be conceived that the sick man confessed his sins to the presbyters for 
the purpose of their intercession; Christians generally are to practise the 
same duty of confession toward each other. It is incorrect, with Chrysos- 
tom (De Sacerd.; i., iii.) and several ancient and other expositors, to refer 
the injunction contained in this verse to the above-mentioned relation of the 
presbyters and the sick to each other, and accordingly to paraphrase it, with 
Pott: ὑμεὶς ἀσθενοῦντες ἐξομολογεῖσθε τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν καὶ ὑμεὶς 
πρεσβύτεροι εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀσθενούντων ; for by this not only is violence done 
to the language, but also an intolerable tautology arises. ἀλλήλοις can only 
be referred to the relation of individual believers to each other, so that 
Cajetan correctly says: nec hic est sermo de confessione sacramentali. Some 
expositors incorrectly restrict the general expression παραπτώματα to such sins 
which one commits against another; Wolf: de illis tantum peccatis sermo est, 
quae aller in alterum commisit, quorumque veniam ab altero poscit; Bengel: 
aegrotus et quisquis offendit, jubetur confiteri; offensus orare. The passage 
treats not of human, but of the divine forgiveness; and thus of sins not as 
offences against our neighbor, but as violations of the law of God.?— καὶ 
εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων]. To ἐξομολόγησις, intercession for one another is to be 
conjoined ; indeed, the former takes place in order that the latter may fol- 
low. The contents of the prayer is naturally the divine forgiveness, but the 
aim to be attained thereby is ὅπως ἰαθῆτε. The word ἰᾶσθαι is in the N. T. 
used both literally and figuratively (Heb. xii. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 24). After the 
example of several expositors (Hottinger, De Wette, Wiesinger), the first 
meaning has hitherto in this commentary been ascribed to iavjre, on account 
of the connection of this verse with what goes before; but since among ἀλλή- 
λοις are certainly to be understood not only the sick, and James indicates by 
nothing: that his injunction refers only to them, it is more correct to take 
ἰαθῆτε here, in its proper reference to παραπτώματα, in a figurative sense 
(Estius, Carpzov, Grotius, Gebser, and others); whether James likewise 
thought on a bodily healing taking place in the cases occurring (Schnecken- 


1 It must be designated as arbitrary when Let these pray with and for him, and anoint 
Lange understands this passage also as sym- him with the oil of the Spirit; such a course, 
bolical, and thus interprets it: ‘(If any man wherever taken, will surely restore him, and 
as a Christian has been hurt, or become sick his transgressions will be forgiven him.” 
in his Christianity, let him seek healing from 2 Lange primarily understands by this ‘‘ the 
the presbyters, the kernel of the congregation. sins of the Judaizing disposition.” 


100 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


burger, Kern), must remain undetermined. — It is to be remarked, that the 
prayer of the presbyters does not exclude the common intercession of 
the members of the church, and that the efficacy attributed to the latter is © 
not less than that attributed to the former. — πολὺ ἐσχύει δέησις δικαίου évepyov- 
μένη is added by James for the purpose of strengthening the above exhorta- 
tion; the asyndeton connection is with him not remarkable. The stress is 
on πολὺ ἰσχύει, consequently it stands first. δίκαιος, equivalent to the Hebrew 
ΡΣ, is, according to the Christian view of James, he who in faith performs 
the works of νόμος ἐλευθερίας. --- With regard to ἐνεργουμένη, expositors have 
introduced much that is arbitrary. Most take the participle as an adjective 
belonging to δέησις, and then attempt to explain the expression δέησις évepyou- 
μένη. Ocecumenius leaves the word itself unexplained, but he lays stress on 
the point that the prayer of the righteous is only then effectual when he, 
for whom it is offered, συμπράττῃ διὰ κακώσεως πνευματικῆς With the suppliant. 
Michaelis explains it: preces agitante Spiritu sancto effusae; Carpzov: δέησις 
διὰ πίστεως ἐνεργουμένη; Gebser understands prayer in which the suppliant 
himself works for the accomplishment of his wish; similarly Calvin: tune 
vere in actu est oratio, quum succurrere contendimus iis, qui laborant. Accord- 
ing to the usual explanation, ἐνεργουμένη is assumed to be synonymous with 
ἐνεργῆς or ἐνεργός (ἐκτενῆς, Luke xxii. 44; Acts xii. 5), “strenuus,” “intentus,” 
“earnest,” etc., and this qualification of the prayer of the righteous man is 
attached to πολὺ ἰσχύει aS its condition; Luther: “if it is earnest” (so Wie- 
singer, and similarly Erasmus, Beza, Gataker, Hornejus, Grotius, Wolf, 
Baumgarten, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Bouman, and others). 
This explanation, however, has not only, as Wiesinger confesses, N. T. 
usage against it, but this qualification cannot be taken as the condition - 
of πολὺ ἰσχύει, but is rather the statement of the characteristic nature of 
the prayer of the righteous man. It would be more correct to adhere 
to the verbal meaning of the participle (so Pott, whose paraphrases, how- 
ever: πολὺ ἰσχύει [δύναται] ἐνεργεῖν, OY: πολὺ ἰσχύει Kal ἐνεργεῖ δέησις, are arbi- 
trary), and to explain it: the prayer of the righteous man availeth much, 
whilst it works (not: “if it applies itself to working,” De Wette), i.e., in 
its working. That it does work, is assumed; that, besides working, it πολὺ 
ἰσχύει, which James brings forward and confirms by the following example 
of Elias.? 

Vv. 17,18. James, wishing to show in the example of Elias the power 
of prayer, observes beforehand on the objection that, owing to his peculiar 
greatness (see Ecclus. xlviii. 1-15), the example of Elias was inapplicable 
to ordinary men, that ᾿Ελίας ἄνθρωπος ἣν ὁμοιοπαθὴς ἡμῖν. ---- ἄνθρωπος is not here 
pleonastic (Schneckenburger), but denotes the point on which James insists, 
which is still more strengthened by ὁμοιοπαθὴς ἡμῖν. This idea contains no 
reference to the sufferings which Elias had to endure (Laurentius, Schneck- 
enburger, Bouman), but signifies only of like disposition and nature; see 
Meyer on Acts xiv. 15; comp. also Wisd. of Sol. viii. 8, and Grimm on 
4 Macc. xii. 13. Lange inappropriately explains it “similarly conditioned.” 


1 Lange translates: ‘‘ which is inwardly effectual (working), and thinks that ἐνεργεῖσθαι 
expresses a passive-active working. 


CHAP. V. 17, 18. 161 
Gebser assumes a contrast to δίκαιος, strangely explaining it: “having the 
same sentiments and passions as we; James inferred how much more will 
the prayer of a δικαίου avail.” — The history, to which James refers, is con- 
tained in 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 1, 41 ff. The account of James differs in 
two points from the O. T. narrative; first, the point on account of which 
James appeals to Elias, namely his twofold prayer, is not mentioned; and, 
secondly, it is stated that it began to rain in the third year. Both in 1 Kings 
xvii. 1 and in xviii. 41, Elias only announces what will take place; in the 
first passage, that it will not rain these years, and in the second passage, 
that it will soon rain. Neither in what Elias says of himself in 1 Kings 
xvii Ls rp? ΤΟ WR, nor in what is related in 1 Kings xviii. 41, is it 
stated that Elias offered up such a prayer as James mentions; for although 
in ver. 42 Elias is represented as praying, yet it is not hinted that the 
rain took place in consequence of his prayer, since rather the promise of rain 
(ver. 1) preceded the prayer. Yet those statements, and particularly the 
word of Elias in 1 Kings xvii. 2: “127 “2- “DS 53, are to be considered as 
the foundation of the statement of James, whether he followed a tradition 
(see Ecclus, xlviii. 2, 3) or a view peculiar to himself. — With regard to 
the second deviation, the same statement concerning the duration of the 
drought is found in Luke iv. 25 (see Meyer in loco), and in the Jalkut Schi- 
moni on 1 Kings xvi., where it is said: Anno aiii. Achabi fames regnabit in 
Samaria per tres annos et dimidium anni. It is certainly correct, as Benson 
remarks, that if the rain, according to the word of Elias, was stayed at the 
beginning of the rainy season, and it again began to rain in the third year 
at the end of the summer season, the drought would continue in all three 
and a half years; but according to the statement of James, the drought 
began with the prayer of Elias, and continued from that three and a half 
years. Accordingly, Wiesinger is wrong in finding in the remark of Benson 
a sufficient reconciliation of the difference.!— προσευχῇ προσηύξατο, the same 
construction as θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε, Gen. ii. 17, LXX., as the Greek rendering 
of the Hebrew union of the infinite absolute with the finite tense, which the 
LXX. usually express by the union of the participle with the finite tense 
(see Winer, p. 317 f. [E. T., 355]). This addition of the substantive serves 
to bring out the verbal idea (De Wette), not to denote that the prayer of 
Elias was earnest (Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Lange), but that nothing 
else than his prayer produced the long drought. — τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι, the genitive of 
design after προσηύξατο, because the contents of the prayer agreed with its 
object. This construction corresponds to the frequent use of ἕνα with verbs 
of asking in the N. T.; see Winer, p. 292 (E. T., 820). -- βρέχειν is here 
used, as in the later classics, impersonally ; otherwise in Matt. v. 45; Gen. 


1 It is otherwise with regard to Luke iv. 
25, where the simple duration of time during 
which it would not rain is stated. James has 
erred in making the prayer of Elias mentioned 
by him precede this whole period; whereas 
what is mentioned in 1 Kings xvii. 1, is that it 
commenced after the summer during which 


it had not rained. According to Lange, the 
reconciliation consists in this, that in 1 Kings 
xviii. only the duration of the real famine is 
stated, which did not begin until one year 
after the announcement of the drought; but 
there is no indication of this statement. 


162 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


ii. 5, xix. 24. Baumgarten incorrectly supplies ὁ Θεός as the subject. — καὶ 
οὐκ, x.7.2., the result of the prayer. Schneckenburger: quis non sentit pondus 
dictionis τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι, καὶ οὐκ ἔβρεξεν; comp. Gen. i. 3, fiat lux, et facta est luz. 
- ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς» not on the land, i.e., Palestine (Grotius, Wolf, Baumgarten, 
Stolz, Lange, and others), but on the earth (Luther); comp. Luke iv. 25 
(Gen. vii. 12). 

Ver. 18. The second prayer of Elias, and its result. — ὁ οὐρανὸς ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν, 
a popular form of expression; comp. Acts xiv. 17. -- καὶ ἡ γῆ, «.7.4., contains 
not a further description, but added to mark more strongly the effect of the 
prayer: heaven and earth acted according to the prayer of 151188. -- ἐβλάστησεν, 
properly an intransitive verb; so in Matt. xiii. 26; Mark iv. 27; Heb. ix. 4. 
The first aorist here, as frequently in the later classics, in a transitive signi- 
fication; comp. Gen. i. 11, LXX. With respect to the form, see Winer, 
p. 77 (E. T., 84). — τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς; Schneckenburger: fruges suas, i.e., quas 
Jerre solet. 

Vy. 19, 20. To the exhortation to mutual confession and intercession is 
annexed “ the reference to an important matter — the reclaiming of an erring 
soul” (Wiesinger). Ver. 19 forms the supposition; this is expressed in 
two co-ordinate sentences, of which the first is subordinate in thought to the 
second: “if any convert one who has erred from the truth.” — πλανηθὴ, the 
passive aorist here, as frequently in the signification of the middle. — ἀπὸ τῆς 
dAndeiac. With this is meant not a single practical aberration, but an alien-' 
ation from the Christian principle of life, an inward apostasy from the λόγος 
ἀληθείας by which the Christian is begotten (Jas. i. 18), disclosing itself in a 
sinful course of life (so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange!). — καὶ ἐπιστρέψῃ, 
sc. ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ; comp. Luke i. 16, 17. 

Ver. 20 forms the apodosis. — γενωσκέτω]. The τις mentioned in the second 
half of the preceding verse is the subject —the converter and not the con- 
verted. The remarkableness of the repetition of the subject after ὅτι disap- 
pears, when it is considered that the idea to be taken to heart is expressed 
as a sentence which is universally valid.2 Calvin rightly draws attention to 
the fact that the tendency of the verse is to excite zeal for the conversion 
of the erring. — The word ἁμαρτωλόν is to be retained in its general significa- 
tion, and not to be referred simply to τόν πλανηθέντα ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας; it denotes 
the genus to which he that errs from the truth belongs as species. —é« πλάνης 
ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ, not = ex erroris vita (Schulthess); correctly, Luther: “from the 
error of his way.” πλάνη states the nature of the way on which the ἁμαρτωλός 
walks, and forms the contrast to ἀλήθεια. ---- σώσει ψυχὴν [αὐτοῦ] ἐκ θανάτου, i.e., 
he will save a (his) soul from the death to which otherwise ut would have fallen a 
prey. The future is here used because James “has in view the final result 
of such a saving deed” (Wiesinger). On ψυχήν, comp. chap. i. 21; on the 


1 Arbitrarily, Lange defines the aberration ence to the subject of γινωσκέτω, but expresses 


more precisely ‘fas an aberration into Juda- the general idea that every one who converts a 
istic and chiliastic doings and fanatical and sinner performsa great work; it is the general 
seditious lusts.” statement, under which he who is designated 


2 Wiesinger: “ὁ ἐπιστρέψας is not to be by γινωσκέτω subordinates his doing.” 
taken as equivalent to he who, in strict refer- 


CHAP. V. 20. 163 
reading of the Receptus Estius remarks: absolute posita emphasin habet. But 
probably ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ is the correct reading. θάνατος, eternal destruction, as 
in chap. i. 15. Lange strangely explains it as “the moral dissolution of the 
ontological life eternally self-generating itself.” — καὶ καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν 
is to be understood not of the sins of the converter, who by his good work 
obtains forgiveness, whether on the part of God (Zacharias, Ep. i., Ad Boni- 
fac. ; Bede, Erasmus, Bouman, and others) or on the part of man (Augusti: 
“his own offences will not be remembered ”), but of the sins of the converted 
(so most expositors). The words are an echo of Prov. x. 12 (comp. 1 Pet. 
iv. 8), although it is doubtful if James had, this passage actually in view; 
especially καλύπτειν here does not, as a strict translation of the Hebrew 103, 
—see Neh. iii. 86 (LXX., ed. Tisch. iv. 6); Ps. xxxii. 1, lxxxv. 3,— 
signify to forgive, but the figurative expression is used by James in the sense 
that the sins of the converted are by the converter covered or concealed from 
the eyes of God, i.e., their forgiveness is effected. By πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν are 
meant not the sins which the ἁμαρτωλός would otherwise commit (Jaspar: 
peccata adhue patranda), and which were now prevented by his conversion 
(Pott: multa futura impediet), but the multitude of sins which he committed 
before his conversion.! Lange thinks: “this restriction misapprehends the 
progressive nature of guilt;” but how could sins which have not been com- 
mitted be forgiven?? That the mention here is not of human, but of divine 
forgiveness, the close connection of the idea with the pre. ding σώσει ψυχὴν 
ἐκ θανάτου shows. Correctly, Wiesinger: “ καλύψει car. on further the 
σώσει ψυχῆν, and states the ground of this salvation. 


1 De Wette takes objection to the strong 
expression πλῆθος, as he thinks that the refer- 
ence here is only to aberration, and not to a 
vicious life; and on this account he will con- 
sider, along with this, the sins of those who 
stand in reciprocal action with him who has 
erred, and were or might have been injured 
and led astray by him; but without reason; 
especially πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν correspouds en- 
tirely to the idea πλανηθῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθειας, 


provided it be not arbitrarily weakened (so 
also Briickner). 

2 «Tn order to give prominence to the noble 
historical import of the Epistle, which has been 
only too much missed and neglected,’ Lange 
maintains that James here, at the conclusion, 
invites the believing part of his people to engage 
in intercession ..d in ‘*the work of salvation, 
that many individuals may be saved from death, 
and a multitude of sins might be atoned for.” 





, | = ν' 
" Ὰ ‘ 
΄ i . 
ἢ 
i Ri he . ν᾿ 
7 y δ᾽ 
‘ is «4 . 
τ i 
re ‘ “ = 
* 4 
P) 
‘ 
‘ 
‘ 
1 
« 
' ᾿ ω 
Ψ΄ - 
Ἷ Ty = A 
a . 
" ζ ν 
: ΠῚ 
ν᾽ ω 





ν 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 


INTRODUCTION. 


SEC. 1.—THE APOSTLE PETER. 


Tue apostle’s real name was Σίμων (according to another pronunciation 
Συμεών, Acts xv. 14; 2 Pet. i. 1). A native of Bethsaida on the Sea of 
Galilee (John i. 45), he dwelt afterwards in Capernaum (Luke iv. 31, 38), 
where he was married (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 5), and where his mother-in-law lived. 
In the tradition, his wife is called at one time Concordia, at another Per- 
petua, and is said (Clem. Alex., Strom. 7) to have suffered martyrdom 
before him. Along with his father Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17; called ᾿Ιωάννης 
also, John i. 43, xxi. 15) and his brother Andrew, he was by occupation a 
fisherman on the Sea of Galilee. When the Baptist began his ministry 
at the Jordan, the two brothers resorted to him. On John’s testimony 
Andrew, and through his instrumentality Peter, attached themselves to 
Jesus, who gave to the latter the name full of promise, Cephas. From 
that time forth Peter, and along with him Andrew, remained a disciple of 
Christ. After he had accompanied Jesus—as there is no reason to doubt 
—on the journeys recorded by John, chaps. ii. 2-iv. 43, we find him, it is 
true, again engaged in his earthly calling; but from this there is no reason 
for concluding that he had forsaken Jesus, who Himself was then living in 
Capernaum, Matt. iv. 13,18. At that time he received his call to enter 
on the service of Christ. On the occasion of the miraculous draught of 
fishes he was impressed powerfully, and as he never before had been, by 
the revelation of his Master’s glory; to his words: ἔξελθε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, the reply 
is given: ἀπὸ τοῦ viv ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ Gwypav. Received afterwards into the 


1 That Luke (v. 1 ff.) and Matthew (iv. ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, agree in sense 
18 ff.) relate the same fact, admits of no with those in Luke addressed specially to 
doubt; not only are the scenes and the per- Peter. Neither is there any inward differ- 


sons identical, but the words in Matthew, ence (cf. Meyer on Luke y. 1 ff.), for the 
165 


166 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


number of the apostles, he forthwith gained a prominent place among them. 
- Not only was he one of the three who stood in most trusted fellowship with 
Jesus, but on himself pronouncing in his own name and in that of his fel- 
lows the decisive confession: σὺ εἰ ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ (cf. John vi. 67 ff.), 
Jesus confirmed the name formerly given to him, and added the promise: 
ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου THY ἐκκλησίαν... Kal δώσω σοὶ τὰς κλεῖς THE βασι- 
λείας τῶν οὐρανῶν. Thus a primacy was lent to him which is in harmony 
with the word of Christ later on: στήριζον τοὺς ἀδελφούς cov (Luke xxii. 32), 
and the charge of the Risen One: βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου (John xxi. 15-17). 
And for such a calling Peter was peculiarly fitted, by the energy prompting 
to decisive action, which formed an essential feature of his character; 
though not until his natural man had been purified and sanctified by the 
Spirit of the Lord. For, on the one hand, his resolute character betrayed 
him more than once into vaingloriousness, self-will, and unthinking zeal; 
and, on the other, he was wanting in the patience and even firmness which 
might have been expected from him who was surnamed the Rock. Whilst, 
too, he pressed on swiftly to the end he had in view, as if to take it by 
storm, confronted with danger he was seized of a sudden with faint-hearted- 
ness; his nature was suited more to quick action than to patient suffering. 
As proofs of this may be taken his walking on the sea and his sudden fear 
(Matt. xiv. 28-31), his rebuke of Christ (Matt. xvi. 22), his question as to 
the sufficient measure of forgiveness (Matt. xviii. 21), his inquiring what 
reward they, the disciples, would have, in that they had forsaken all for 
Christ’s sake (Matt. xix. 27). In still more marked lines does the picture 
of his distinctive character stand out in the background of Christ’s passion, 
when he first in vain self-confidence promises to the Lord that he would 
never forsake him, but would go with Him even unto death, and then on 
the Mount of Olives is unable to watch with Him; he wishes, thereupon, to 
save his Master with the sword, and follows Him even to the court of the 
high priest, but in sudden cowardice denies Him before the men-servants 
and maids, and as quickly, feeling the whole weight of his guilt, leaves the 
judgment-hall in tears. On account of these unquestionably serious vacil- 
lations in feeling and conduct, he nevertheless cannot be accused of inde- 
cision of character. If he showed himself weak on particular occasions, 


point” of Matthew’s narrative is not the is related in y. 8 does not prove that previous 
mere injunction and promise, as in Luke’s to this Peter had had no experience of mira- 
it is not the “miracle of the draught of cles, since that which produced the impres- 
fishes,’’ but the call to become fishers of men. sion on Peter — related by Luke — was not 
Nor does Luke contradict himself, for what necessarily the jirst miracle he witnessed. 


INTRODUCTION, 167 


this was the result partly of his sanguine temperament, in which action 
instantaneously followed on excited feeling, and partly of his great self- 
confidence, into which he was betrayed by the consciousness of his own 
strength. The denial of Christ led to his inward purification; all the more 
that after His resurrection Christ revealed Himself to Peter first among the 
apostles. And so to the thrice-repeated question of the Lord, if he loved 
Him more than the others, he returned the answer, humble yet full of faith: 
“Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee.” 

After the ascension of Christ, Peter appears standing at the head of the 
apostles, for it is at his advice that their number is again increased to twelve. 
After the descent of the Spirit, however, he becomes in reality the Rock, as 
Christ had ordained him; henceforth the direction and furtherance of the 
church rest chiefly in his hand. It was his sermon —the first apostolic 
sermon — by means of which, on the Day of Pentecost, three thousand were 
added to the church of God; and if afterwards he labored at first in connec- 
tion with John, it was yet himself who was the real actor (Acts iii. 1, 4 ff., 
11 ff.). He healed the lame man, addressed the people, and on both 
apostles being brought before the ecclesiastical authorities, it was he who 
was the speaker. He had to execute judgment on Ananias and Sapphira 
(Acts v. 1-10); and when the whole of the apostles were summoned to 
appear before the Sanhedrim, it is he, too, who in the name of all testifies 
for Christ. Again, in Samaria, whither he went along with John to con- 
tinue the work begun by Philip, John appears beside him only as an accom- 
panying fellow-worker. — During the time that the churches had rest after 
the conversion of Paul, Peter journeyed throughout the districts of Palestine 
bordering on the Mediterranean Sea; in Lydda he healed Aeneas (Acts 
ix. 32 ff.), and raised up Tabitha in Joppa (ix. 386 ff.).—In accordance 
with the position assigned to him by Christ, he was permitted by God to 
bring into the church the first-fruits of heathenism; for although Paul was 
destined to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, it was still Peter who should 
Jirst preach the gospel to the heathen, and administer the ordinance of bap- 
tism, that thus also he might retain the primacy, and be the Rock of the 
Church. — During the persecution raised shortly before his death by Herod 
Agrippa I., Peter was cast into prison. After his miraculous release he 
quitted Jerusalem! for a time, but later on again returned thither. The 


1 We are not told where Peter went; Acts founded the Christian Church, has, without 
xii. 17 only says: ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἕτερον τόπον. sufficient warrant, been accepted by Thiersch 
The statement of several Fathers, that Peter (Die Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, p. 96 ff.). 
then betook himself to Rome, and there This is decidedly opposed not only by the 


108 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


last circumstance which the Acts of the Apostles relates of him is his justi- 
fication of Paul at the so-called convention of apostles in Jerusalem. 

The labors of Paul among the heathen, and the reception of believing 
Gentiles into the Christian Church, occasioned the first division amongst the 
Christians. What position did Peter then take up? After what he himself 
had witnessed at the conversion of Cornelius, he could not make common 
cause with the Judaistically-minded Christians; in the proceedings at Jeru- 
salem, too, he placed himself decidedly on the side of Paul, and spoke 
against the subjugation of the heathen to the law. It was then, on Peter 
formally recognizing the grace given by the Lord to Paul, that an agree- 
ment was come to, that Paul and Barnabas should labor among the Gentiles, 
whilst he himself, along with John and James, should devote themselves to 
the Jews (Gal. ii. 9) —the field of missionary enterprise being in this way 
divided among them. —In thus limiting his activity to the Jewish people, 
Peter detracted in no way from his primacy; for this, which had never in 
any sense been absolute, remained intact, as is evident from the circum- 
stance that Paul took especial care to assure himself of Peter's consent, and 
acknowledged his foremost position among the apostles (cf. Gal. ii. 7, 8). 

That Peter, with all his recognition of Paul’s principles, was wholly unfit 
to undertake the direction of missions to the Gentiles, is proved by his con- 
duct at Antioch, for which he was called to account by Paul. He was not 
wanting, it is true, in a right perception of the relation in which the gospel 
stood to the law, so that without any misgivings he entered into complete 
fellowship with the Gentile Christians; still, as regarded his own conduct, 
this perception was not viyid enough to preserve him‘ from the hypocrisy 
which drew forth Paul’s rebuke (Gal. ii. 12). For, when “certain came” 
to Antioch “from James,” Peter withdrew himself from them, fearing those 
of the circumcision, doubtless because he did not wish to appear in the light 


Epistle to the Romans, but also by the in- 
definite expression employed here. Ewald 
also (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, VI. p. 
618 ff.) thinks “that the old legend as to 
Peter’s sojourn in Rome during the reign of 
Claudius, and his meeting here with Simon 
the magician, was not altogether without 
foundation,” but that the Christian Church 
in Rome had then already been established. 
— But it is not credible, either that if Peter 
had visited the church in Rome, Paul should 
not have made the slightest allusion to the 
fact in his Epistle to the Romans, or that 


Peter should have gone to Rome with the 
intention of there, as in Samaria, opposing 
Simon; cf. Hofmann, p. 203 ff. 

1 As in Gal. ii. 2, 8, 9, 15, τὰ ἔθνη means not 
Gentile Christians, but Gentiles, Paul seems, 
by the expression in ver. 12, μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν 
συνήσθιεν, to have meant heathens also. But 
even if they were only Gentile Christians with 
whom Peter ate, it is not their Christianity, 
but their Gentile nationality and customs, as 
distinguishing them from the Jews, which 
Paul has here in his eye. 


INTRODUCTION. 169 


of a transgressor of the law. How dangerous his example was, became evi- 
dent even then; and it is clear further that the Jewish Christians hostilely 
disposed to the heathen converts were only too ready to appeal to the ex- 
ample of Peter in their opposition to Paul. From this, however, it must 
not be concluded that there was any want of harmony in principle between 
Paul and Peter, and that by the δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ Kowwriac is to be 
understood a mere “temporary truce,” which they had concluded with each 
other in a purely external manner, and whilst holding fast their internal 
differences. ; 
As to where and with what result Peter worked after Paul commenced 
his labors, all precise and reliable information is wanting; from 1 Cor. ix. 5 
it follows only that he made missionary journeys to various regions. If by 
Babylon (chap. v. 18) that city itself and not Rome is to be understood, he 
must have been at the time our epistle was written in Babylon, whence by 
means of this letter he extended his influence to the churches of Asia Minor, 
which, in part at least, had been founded by Paul. 
The account which the Fathers give of the life of the apostle is pervaded 
by many mythical traits. The more important his position, the more natural 
_it was for a one-sided Judaeo-Christianity, as well as for the Catholic Church, 
to draw by invention, intentional or unintentional, the picture of the apos- 
tle’s labors in their own interests. Without any sifting of the legendary 
elements, Hieronymus describes the subsequent life of Peter in the follow- 
ing manner: “ Simon Petrus princeps apostolorum post episcopatum Antiochensis 
ecclesiae et praedicationem dispersionis eorum, qui de circumcisione crediderant, 
in Ponto, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia et Bithynia secundo Claudii imperatoris 
anno ad expugnandum Simonum Magum, Romam pergit, ibique viginti quinque 


1 The Tiibingen school confessedly con- than was really permissible from his dogmatic 


siders the first apostles, and Peter in par- standpoint. The fact, on the contrary, was 


ticular, to have been narrow Judaists, and 
accordingly ascribes to them precisely those 
views which Paul so decidedly combats in 
those of his epistles which are undoubtedly 
Though compelled to admit that 
it was not the first apostles themselves who 


genuine. 


opposed Paul and his gospel at Corinth and 
elsewhere, Pfleiderer (Der Judaismus, Ὁ. 299), 
nevertheless, maintains that they supported 
those who did so. He explains Peter’s con- 
duct in Antioch (p. 296) in this way, that 
the apostle, in order to please the heathen 


Christians, adopted there a mode of life freer 


that his mode of life was stricter than was 
consistent with his principles, for which rea- 
It is 
more than singular that Pfleiderer should so 
entirely overlook the dishonor thus brought 
upon Paul by maintaining that the first apos- 


son Paul accused him of ὑπόκρισις. 


tles preached a different gospel from that 
which he taught. 


out grossly violating his own conscience, ac- 


For how could Paul, with- 


cept the δεξιὰ κοινωνίας offered him by James, 
Peter, and John, if his ἀνάθεμα ἔστω (Gal. i. 
7,8) was applicable to each of them as the 
preacher of a ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον ? 


170 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


annis cathedram sacerdotalem tenuit, usque ad ullimum annum Neronis, id est, 
decimum quartum. A quo et afficus cruci martyrio coronatus est, capite ad terram 
verso et in sublime pedibus elevatis, asserens se indignum, qui sic crucifigeretur ut 
dominus suus. Sepultus Romae in Vaticano juxta viam triumphalem totius orbis 
veneratione celebratur” (De Scriptor. Eccl., cap. i., De Petro). 

In this narrative the following particulars are mythical: (1) The epis- 
copate of Peter in the church at Antioch; the saying, too, of Eusebius 
(Chronicum ad Annum, iii.), that Peter founded the church at Antioch, must 
be considered apocryphal, as contradicting Acts xi. 19-22. (2) His personal 
activity in the regions of Asia Minor; this is doubtless mentioned already 
by Origen as probable;? but it must be regarded simply as an inference 
from 1 Pet. i. 1, as even Windischmann (Vindiciae Pet., § 112 f.) admits. 
(3) His journey to Rome for the purpose of combating Simon Magus ? 
This story is. based on a passage in Justin’s Apologia Maj., c. 26, which 
speaks of a statue in Rome with the following inscription: ΣΙΜΩΝΙ AEQ 
ZATKTQ, which, however, has been discovered to be the dedication not to 
(4) The twenty-five 
years’ residence of Peter in Rome (cf. on this Wieseler’s Chronol. des Apos- 


that Simon, but to the Sabine god Semo Sanctus. 


tol. Zeitalters, Ὁ. 571 ff.). Perhaps also (5) the peculiar manner of his cruci- 
fixion, which has been recorded by Origen already (in Euseb., H. E., iii. 1: 
ἀνεσκολοπίσθη κατὰ κεφαλῆς) ; the motive given for it by Hieronymus must cer- 
tainly be looked upon as an arbitrary addition. As indisputable fact, there 
remains, in the first instance, only the martyrdom of the apostle, which is 
corroborated by the unanimous testimony of antiquity, and especially by 
John xxi. 19;% the residence in Rome appears more open to doubt, still the 
reasons which can be urged against it are not sufficient to prove the purely 


legendary character of the tradition. Although Clemens Rom. (£p. ad. 


1 Euseb., 17. Z., iii. 1: Πέτρος ἐν Πόντῳ, 
; ΞΕ ἢ a» 
K.T.A., κεκηρυχέναι τοῖς ἐν διασπορᾷ ᾿Ιουδαίοις 
ἔοικεν. 


2 The stories about Peter and Simon M. 


in the Clementine Homilies are mere legend-~ 


ary formations. Even Ewald’s opinion, that 
Peter, after his release, went to Rome for 
a short time, in order there to oppose Simon 
M.; that, on his return to Jerusalem, he had 
visited the districts in the north-east, and 
there founded the churches to which he later 
addressed this epistle,—is too destitute of 
secure historical foundation to be regarded 


as correct. 


8 The explanation given in this verse of 
the prophecy contained in ver. 18 is indis- 
putably correct. 
ing it in question (Zinl. in d. Petr. Schriften, 
p. 87) by applying Christ’s words to Peter, 


Mayerhoff is wrong in call- 


not to the martyrdom he was about to suffer, 
but to the apostle himself, as destined to be 
the leader of the church: ‘He explains to 
Peter the necessity of a ministry of this kind, 
by pointing out to him that active support 
of the needy is a duty imposed by love to 
Christ.” Meyer gives the right explanation 
of this passage. Cf. in loc. 


INTRODUCTION. 71 


Corinth., 6. 5) does not say that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome, yet 
Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb., H. E., ii. 25), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., iii. 1), 
Tertullian (Contra Marce., iv. 5, and De Praescript. adv. Haeret., c. 36), and 
Origen (Euseb., H. E., iii. 1) do; and so early as by the presbyter Cajus 
Doubt- 
less these testimonies are mixed up with many inexact and inaccurate par- 


mention is made of the τρόπαια of the two apostles Peter and Paul. 


ticulars; but this does not justify doubt as to the truth of the circumstance 
to which Ignatius seems to refer in the words: οὐχ ὡς Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος διατάσ- 
coua (Ep. ad Rom.,c. 4). It is less certain that Peter was in Rome at the 
same time with Paul; nor, as Wieseler wrongly asserts, are all the witnesses 
of the second century who speak of the martyrdom of Peter in Rome guar- 
anties for it. For, with the exception of the author of the Praedicatio Pauli, 
whose testimony is uncertain, not one of these witnesses speaks of a meeting 
and a conjoint labor of the two apostles in Rome, although all relate that 
both of them in Rome had a part in founding the church, and that they 
suffered martyrdom there. Even the circumstance mentioned by Dionysius 
of Corinth (Euseb., H. E., ii. 25): ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν Karpov.) does not 
prove that at any previous time they had lived together; for this expression 
allows, as Wieseler himself grants, the possibility of a period of time — pro- 
vided it be not too long—having elapsed between the deaths of the two 
apostles. ‘“ What remains, then, as the kernel of ecclesiastical tradition is 
this: that towards the end of his life Peter came to Rome, that he there 
labored for the propagation of the gospel, and that he suffered martyrdom 
under Nero” (Wiesinger; cf. also Bleek, Introd. to N. T., p. 563 ff. [E. T., 
ii. 157 ff.]). As, then, the Epistle of Peter is addressed to Pauline churches 
(i.e., those churches which were either founded by Paul himself, or had 
sprung from such as had been so founded), and as Peter could hardly feel 
himself called upon during Paul’s lifetime to interfere with the latter’s field 
of missionary operations, it is not at all improbable that he suffered martyr- 
dom later than Paul. This is supported by the circumstance that after 
Paul’s death, and then only, was the fitting time for him to labor in Rome. 
Had Peter been there earlier, some trace surely of his presence would have 


1 The words of Dionysius, καὶ yap ἄμφω 
Kal εἰς THY ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φυτεύσαντες ἡμᾶς 
ἐδίδαξαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν ὁμόσε 
διδάξαντες ἐμαμτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν, 
admit, on the whole, of but a doubtful infer- 
ence, the more so that what is said here of 
Peter’s labor in Corinth appears to have arisen 
only from the fact that there was, at an early 


period in Corinth, a party calling itself by 
Peter’s name. A legend such as this could 
originate, all the more easily from the en- 
deavor to bring the two apostles as near as 
possible to each other; the κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν 
καιρόν may also have arisen from that endea- 


vor. 


172 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


If, then, Paul suffered 
martyrdom at the earliest in the year 64, the death of Peter must have taken 
place in the time between 65-67 A.D.1 


been found in Paul’s epistles written from Rome. 


SEC. 2.— CONTENTS, AIM, AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE.? 


* The contents of the epistle are in the order of thought as follows: First 
of all, thanksgiving to God for the hope of the eternal inheritance in heaven, 
of which the Christians had been made partakers, of which they can with 
joy be certain, although for a time here they have to suffer tribulation, and 
of which the glory is so great that the prophets diligently searched after it, 
and the angels desired to behold it. This is followed by a series of exhor- 
The /irst class (i. 13-ii. 10) 


is linked on to the thought of the glory promised to the Christians, and has 


tations, which may be divided into three classes. 
sanctification in general as its object. Foremost and as a starting-point 
stands the summons to a full hope of the future grace (τελείως ἐλπίσατε) ; 
then follows the exhortation to a holy walk (ἅγιοι γενήθητε) in the fear of 
God the impartial Judge, based on a conscious knowledge of the redemption 
wrought by the blood of Christ (i. 14-21); then, to a pure and unfeigned 
love of the brethren (ἀλλήλους ἀγαπῆσατε), as became those who were born of 
incorruptible seed G. 15-25); and lastly, laying aside all κακία, to desire the 
pure milk, and firmly cleaving to Christ, as living stones to build themselves 


1 According to Ewald, Peter suffered mar- 
tyrdom before Paul; that is to say, during 
the persecutions of the Christians by Nero, 
A.D. 64, whilst Paul, having been released 
from his Roman captivity, was in Spain. 

2 The epistle is one of those termed already 
by Origen, the seven ἐπιστολαὶ, καθολικαί; for 
the meaning of the designation, cf. Introd. 
to the N. T., and Herzog’s Encyclopddie, 
VII. p. 497 ff. The most probable view is 
this: that, when the Pauline Epistles were 
classified together as a whole, the other epis- 
{168 of the N. T. canon were united together 
under the title of catholic epistles, because 
they were not addressed to individual.churches 
or particular persons, but as circular letters 
to Christendom generaliy, or to a somewhat 
extensive system of churches, just as Origen 
termed the apostolic epistle, Acts xy. 22, an 
ἐπιστολὴ καθολική. The objection may, doubt- 


less, be raised to this view, that the Epistle 
to the Hebrews should be included among 
these, whilst Second and Third John should 
But the addition 
of the former to the Pauline Epistles is 


be excluded from them. 


explained by its having been believed to 
be by Paul; and the inclusion of the latter 
among the catholic epistles, by the circum- 
stance that having, in later times only, come 
to be regarded as canonical, they were added 
on to the much more important First Epistle 
of John. 
seven epistles have the above designation 


Hofmann’s opinion, “that the 


because they are writings neither arising from 
nor pertaining to any personal relation of the 
writer to those whom he addresses,” is con- 


- tradicted by the term itself, since the expres- , 


sion καθολικός contains not the slightest allu- 
sion to a relation subsisting between the 
writer and those to whom he writes. 


INTRODUCTION. 178 


up more and more to the spiritual house, in accordance with their calling as 
Christians (τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον yada ἐπιποθῆσατε" . . , ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε), 
ii. 1-0. --- The second series of exhortations (ii. 11--ἶν. 6), which are of a 
special nature, is in connection with the position of the Christians in the 
world (παρακαλῶ ὡς παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήῆμους ". . . τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν ἐν τοὶς 
ἔθνεσιν ἔχοντες, VV- 11, 12), and has reference — (1) To the relation to civil 
authorities (ii. 18-17); (2) To the particular relations of domestic life: 
(a) exhortation to the slaves (of οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι... τοῖς δεσπόταις, 18-25) 
to obedience towards their masters in patient endurance, even of unjust suf- 
fering, based on a reference to the sufferings of Christ; (Ὁ) exhortation to 
the women to be subject unto their husbands, and to a holy walk, with 
reference to the godly women of the O. T., especially Sarah, iii. 1-6; (c) 
exhortation to the men to a discreet treatment of their wives; (3) To the 
relation to the world persecuting the church; after a short exhortation to 
unity and love (ver. 8), the apostle exhorts not to return evil for evil 
(vv. 9-14); with meekness to give a reason for their own hope (ver. .15), 
and in the midst of suffering to give proof of faithful submission to the 
divine will (vv. 16,17). These exhortations are based on a reference to 
Christ, who through suffering entered into His glory (vv. 18-22), and who 
by His death appeals to believers not to continue their former life, but to 
lead a new one, even though they should be reviled for it. Lastly, the 
apostle reminds his readers of the future judgment of Christ (iv. 1-6). — 
The third class of exhortations (iv. 7-v. 9) has special reference to life in 
the church, and is connected with the thought of the nearness of the end 
of all things (iv. 7). The several particulars to which prominence is given 
are: soberness unto prayer (ver. 7), ardent love towards each other (ver. 8), 
hospitality (ver. 9), a faithful administration of spiritual gifts for the gen- 
eral good (vv. 10, 11), joyful bearing of the sufferings of Christ (vv. 12-19). 
Hereupon follows an exhortation to the elders to guide the church in a right 
manner, reference being made to the reward which awaits them (v. 1-4); 
then a command to the younger to submit themselves to the elder (ver. 5); 
on this, admonitions to all to a humble behavior towards each other, and 
to humiliation before God (vv. 6, 7); lastly, a summons to watchfulness 
against the temptations of the Devil (vv. 8, 9).— The epistle concludes with 
the benediction and a doxology (vv. 10, 11), an observation on this epistle 
itself (ver. 12), and sundry commissions (vv. 13, 14). 

The aim of this epistle is stated by the apostle himself (v. 12) in the 
words: ἔγραψα παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ Θεοὺ, εἰς ἣν 
ἑστήκατε. Accordingly he proposed a παρακαλών and an ἐπιμαρτυρῶν, both in 


114 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


close connection with each other, as the immediate juxtaposition of the 
ideas shows. The occasion of them lay in this, that the readers, as profess- 
ing Christians, had to endure severe afflictions through the slanders of the 
heathen. In view of the dangers lying therein, the apostle was careful, on 
the one hand, to exhort them to patience, by directing their minds to the 
future κληρονομία, as also to the continuance in holiness, and to a conduct 
towards each other and towards the heathen such as would lead the latter 
to see how groundless their slanders were; and, on the other hand, that his 
exhortation might not be without a firm basis, to assure them that a state of 
suffering was the true divine state of grace. Accordingly the epistle bears 
neither a polemical nor a doctrinal, but an entirely hortatory character. No 
doubt dogmatic ideas are interwoven in some passages; these, however, are 
never treated doctrinally, but are always made subservient to the purpose of 
exhortation. 


REMARK. — Schott regards this epistle as, in the first instance, a letter of 
consolation, in which the readers are calmed and comforted, on the one hand, 
with respect ‘“‘to the accusations of the heathen, that they, as matter of 
principle, denied a moral basis to social life;’? and, on the other, as regards 
their fears, lest the fact of God’s permitting persecutions should be a proof to 
them that they were without the ‘‘complete moral certainty of their salvation 
in Christ.’ In opposition to this, it is to be remarked that Peter uses παρακαλεῖν 
only in the sense of ‘‘ to exhort,”’ and that even if the apostle, in the treatment 
of his subject, does introduce some words of comfort, the whole epistle cannot, 
on that account, be styled a letter of consolation, the less so that these very 
words are always made subservient to purposes of exhortation; cf. Weiss, Die 
petrin. Frage, p. 631 f.—Several interpreters assume from ἐπιμαρτυρῶν, x.T.A., 
that Peter composed his hortatory epistles with the intention also of formally 
confirming the preaching of the gospel aforetime addressed to his readers. 
Wiesinger says: ‘‘ Peter, in his epistle to Pauline churches, has impressed the 
seal of his testimony on the gospel as preached by Paul.’’ Weiss, while 
questioning this, in that he does not consider the church to have been Pauline, 
nevertheless asserts that ‘‘the apostle wished, by his apostolic testimony, to 
confirm the preaching already delivered to the readers,’’ and for this reason 
precisely, ‘‘ that it had not yet been proclaimed to them by an apostle.’? But, 
although in i. 12, 25, we have it attested that the true gospel is preached unto 
them, and, in ν. 12, that thus they are made partakers of the very grace of God, 
still this testimony is not made in such a form as to warrant the conclusion that 
tne Apostle Peter considered it necessary to confirm, by his apostolic authority, 
the preaching by which the readers had been converted; nor does it imply 
that the readers had begun to doubt of its truth, because it had come to them 


INTRODUCTION. 176 


— directly or indirectly—from Paul, or even from one who was no apostle. 
The double testimony is rather to be explained simply thus: The apostle was 
desirous of preserving his readers from the danger to which they were exposed, 
by the trials that had befallen them, of entertaining doubts as to their state of 
grace, and of confirming them in the confident trust in the grace of which they 
had been made partakers, apart altogether from the person by whom the gospel 
had been preached to them. — Hofmann, while justly recognizing the hortatory 
character of the epistle, thinks that Peter’s intention in it was ‘‘to secure the 
fruits of Paul’s labors in a way possible only to the Apostle of the Circum- 
cision.’”? But in the epistle there is not the smallest hint of any such intention, 
nor is there any mention made of a difference between the Apostle of the 
Gentiles and the Apostle of the Circumcision. Besides, if such were his 
intention, it is impossible to understand how Peter could have written a 
hortatory epistle of such length. This same objection may be urged against 
Bleek’s idea that the sole occasion of the,epistle was the journey of Silvanus to 
Asia Minor. — Pfleiderer (as above, p. 419) correctly gives the design of the 
letter thus: *‘ An exhortation to patience and perseverance under severe perse- 
cution from without, as also to a blameless life, by means of which the Christian 
Church might avoid every occasion for a justifiable persecution.’’ — On Schweg- 
ler’s hypothesis, that the letter was written with the design of effecting a 
compromise between the followers of Paul and those of Peter, see § 4, Introd. 
Ewald’s view, that this circular letter was composed chiefly with the design “ οὗ 
teaching the true relation to all heathen, and heathen rulers,’’ is refuted by the 
contents themselves, which go far beyond this. 


The peculiar character of the epistle is due as much to the individuality 
of its author as to its own hortatory tendency; but not to this, that its 
author preached a Christianity different from that of the other apostles, 
that is to say, a narrow Jewish Christianity. The Christianity of Peter, in 
its subjective as in its objective side, is the same as that of Paul and John. 
As regards the objective side, there are no conceptions of the person of Christ 
here expressed lower than in the other books of the N. T. Weiss, who 
draws a distinction between the historical and the speculative methods of 
viewing the person of Christ in the N. T., is no doubt of opinion that only 
the former of these is to be found here, and that therefore Peter’s concep- 
tion is, in this respect, only a preliminary step to those of Paul and John. 
But although Peter does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ in so many 
words, yet the significance which, according to him, Christ had for the reali- 
zation of the eternal purposes of God toward humanity (i. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10-12, 
18-20, ii. 4-10, 21-25, iii. 18-iv. 6, iv. 13, 14, v. 4, 10), goes to prove that 


176 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


he did not regard Christ “as a mere man,” distinguished from other men 
only in that “ He was anointed by God at His baptism with the Holy Spirit, 
and thus equipped for the office of Messiah.” Besides, however, there are 
not wanting hints which point to a higher conception than this. If Christ 
be not called υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, God is spoken of directly as πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ’᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ (chap. i. 8, 2); and the name κύριος, which Peter, according to the 
i ins usage, frequently applies to God, is by him attributed without any 
explanation to Christ also. Again, if the Trinity, to which reference is 
made in chap. i. 2, be only the economical Trinity, still in it Christ is placed 
in such a relation to God “as could absolutely never, and especially never in 
the domain of Old-Testament faith, be applied to a mere human instrument” 
(Jul. Kostlin). Still further, in chap. i. 20, προεγνωσμένου πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, 
where even Weiss is forced to find an idea expressed beyond any that can 
be explained on the “historic principle,” though it be true that here it is 
not —as Schumann (Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi, Ὁ. 449) assumes — the 
real, but only, in the first instance, the ideal pre-existence that is affirmed, 
yet this very ideal pre-existence undeniably points beyond the simple hu- 
manity of Christ. It is, too, a mere makeshift for Weiss to assert that the 
idea was formed in Peter’s mind, from the circumstance only, that Christ 
had already been predicted by the prophets, for πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου plainly 
goes far beyond this. And lastly, even if Weiss’s interpretation of 7d... 
πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, chap. i. 11 (see Comment., in loc.), were admissible, it would 
also follow, from the very fact that Peter spoke of the working of God’s 
Spirit in the prophets, according to its indwelling in Christ, that he had a 
conception of Christ’s nature higher than any Weiss would allow him to 
have had. 

Peter’s estimate also of the work of Christ, as of His person, is in no way 
different from that of the other apostles. For him, too, it is the death and 
resurrection of Christ which lays the foundation of man’s salvation, the 
communication of the Spirit of the glorified Christ by which that salvation 
is appropriated by man, and the second coming of Christ by which it is 
completed. No doubt Weiss thinks that Peter attributes to the blood of 
Christ a redemptive, but not an expiatory; power, and that certainly the idea 
of sacrifice is foreign to him, if that of substitution be not; but this opinion 
can be justified only by a misconception of the particular points in the 
passages in question (i. 18, 19, ii. 24, 111. 18). 

With respect to the subjective side of Christianity, Peter has in reference 
to it also no peculiar teaching. According to him, it is again faith which is 
made the condition of a participation in the salvation of Christ; cf. i. 5, 7, 


INTRODUCTION. 177 


8, 9, 21, il. 7 (iv. 13), v. 9. True, the πίστις οἱ Peter is not characterized as 
specifically Christian by any adjunct such is εἰς Χριστόν; but that none other 
than a faith on Christ can be meant is evident, partly from the reference to 
the redeeming death of Christ which pervades the whole epistle, and partly 
from the circumstance, that when God is spoken of as the object of faith 
(i. 21), the phrase: τὸν éyeipavta αὐτὸν (Χριστὸν) ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα 
(comp. Rom. iv. 24), is added to Θεόν by way of nearer definition. It can 
with no justification be asserted that faith according to Peter is, on the one 
hand, only the trust in God based on the miracle of the resurrection, and on 
the other simply the recognition of the Messianic dignity of Christ, and that 
accordingly he does not, like Paul, make reference to the atonement accom- 
plished by the blood of Christ. For, precisely because Peter regards the 
death of Christ as the ground of salvation, it is plainly impossible that he 
should think of this faith by which redemption is obtained, without reference 
to the death of Christ and its effects. Weiss, though he admits that this 
faith, according to the view taken of it not merely by Paul and John, but 
also by Peter, introduces into real community of life with Christ, does so 
only under this restriction, that Peter’s conception is based entirely on the 
utterances of Christ, and has not as yet been worked into didactic shape; 
as if the living faith were not necessarily conscious of community of life 
with Christ, and as if the matter contained in an epistle written with the 
view of imparting instruction must of necessity be brought into didactic 
form. If, according to Peter, the life of faith be, from its earliest commence- 
ment, a life of obedience, there is taught in this nothing different from what 
Paul more than once affirms (Rom. vi. 17, xv. 18, xvi. 19, 20; 2 Cor. x. 15); 
but that Peter “makes the idea of obedience so prominent, that faith as the 
fundamental condition of the possession of salvation retires completely into 
the background” (Weiss), is an unfounded assertion. — Since, then, the 
epistle is written with the design παρακαλεῖν the Christians, who were endur- 
ing affliction for their faith’s sake, the reference to a future and complete 
salvation — κληρονομία, σωτηρία, δόξα, χάρις Swo#¢ —forms, along with the exhor- 
tation to a pious Christian walk of life, a chief feature in it, and it is there- 
fore quite natural that the ἐλπίς should appear as the centre of its apostolic 
παράκλησις (chap. i. 3, 13, 21, iii. 5, 9, 15, iv. 18, v. 1, 4,10). But although 
it is peculiar to Peter to gaze on the future completion of salvation with a 
hope that stretched away beyond the present possession of it, yet we must 
not on that account seek to draw a distinction between him as the apostle of 
hope, and Paul as the apostle of faith, and still less, with Weiss, attribute to 
him a different conception of doctrine in that, whilst according to Paul hope 


118 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


is only a single constituent of faith, Peter saw in faith only “the preliminary 
step to hope.” ; 


REMARK, — Whilst Weiss considers the doctrinal conception in the epistle 
as a preliminary step to Paulinism, Pfleiderer, on the other hand, characterizes 
it as ‘‘a Paulinism popularized, and thereby rendered weak and insipid.’? In 
reference to this, the following remarks must be made: (1) Pfleiderer indeed 
admits that the emphasis laid on the death of Christ as the means of our 
redemption is a genuinely Pauline feature; at the same time, however, he is of 
opinion that the death of Christ must be taken here as referring not, as with 
Paul, to the expiation of the guilt of sin, but only to the removal of a life of 
sin, and that its redemptory effects can only be considered as morally communi- 
cated, in order that it may, as a powerful example, bring about the resolution to 
an obedient imitation of Christ. But this is clearly incorrect, for it is apparent, 
from an unprejudiced perusal of the passages in question, that redemption from 
the guilt of sin is viewed as the primary effect of Christ’s death, though there 
is undoubtedly also reference to its final aim in delivering from the power of sin. 
How can redemption from a life of sin be conceived of without the forgiveness 
of sin? The very expression ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος ’I. X. (i. 2) is a proof that our 
author regarded the forgiveness of sin as the effect of the blood of Christ. The 
idea that man must earn pardon for himself by his own obedient following of 
Christ is totally foreign to this epistle. (2) If Pfleiderer asserts that here we 
have faith presented in an aspect different from that of Paul, inasmuch as its 
object is not Christ, the historical Redeemer from sin, but Christ, the glorified 
One, it must be urged, in reply, that Christian faith, in the nature of it, has 
reference at once to the abased and to the exalted Christ, —to the former 
because He is exalted, to the latter in that He was made low, —and, that, in 
this passage also, between Paul and the writer of this epistle there was no 
difference, and could be none. (3) In opposition to Pfieiderer’s assertion, that 
obedience also has, for each of the two, a different import, inasmuch as, while 
Paul considers moral obedience to be the fruit of faith, the author of this epistle 
looks on morality as a particular element of faith itself, it must be remarked, 
that, if obedience be the fruit of faith, it must, in germ, be contained in faith, 
that is, be an element of faith. (4) With respect to the πνεῦμα, Pfleiderer 
admits that it is for both, in every way, the life-principle of Christianity; only 
he finds it worthy of notice, that, in this epistle, the communication of the 
Spirit is not made to stand in any way connected with baptism. But it is clearly 
a quite unjustifiable demand, that this relation should find expression in the 
single passage in which reference is made to baptism. — No doubt it cannot be 
denied that the several particulars of Christian faith, knowledge, and life have 
received from Paul a fuller development, and, as a consequence, a clearer 
definition, than in our epistle; but this can be accounted for as much by the 


INTRODUCTION. 179 


individuality of the two apostles as by the purely hortatory character of this 
epistle, and is no evidence of the correctness of Pfleiderer’s view. — Hofmann 
justly remarks: ‘* The epistle contains nothing by which its author can be 
recognized as the advocate of an ... insipid Paulinism, and nothing either 
which betrays his dependence on Pauline forms of thought.” 


The peculiar character of the epistle, by which it is distinguished from 
the writings of Paul and John, has its origin not in any doctrinal difference, 
but on the one hand in the individuality of its author, and on the other 
in its own practical design. Peter does not mean to teach, he is anxious 
rather to exhort in accordance with his practical mind,! as far removed from 
the dialectic bent of Paul as from the intuitive of John. — The epistle bears 
further a characteristic impress in the O. T. modes of thought and expres- 
sion peculiar to 10.525 In none of the writings of the N. T. do we find, com- 
paratively speaking, so numerous quotations from and references to the 
O. T. (comp. chap. i. 16, 24, 25, ii. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 22-24, iii. 10-12, 13, 14, 
iv. 8, 17, 18, v. 5, 7). 
much in O. T. conceptions, that he expresses his thoughts by preference in 
When he wishes to set forth the dignity of the Christian 


Church, or to make reference to the future salvation of believers, or to exhort 


But more than this, the author lives and moves so 
O. T. language. 


to a walk becoming Christians, he does so for the most part in the manner 
peculiar to the O. T. Even when he speaks of the death of Christ as the 
ground of salvation, it is in O. T. language that he lays stress on its signifi- 
eance. And all this without so much as hinting at the specific difference 
between the O. and N. T. So that all the ideas, more especially, which are 
in Paul rooted in the clear consciousness of the difference between the two 
economies: δικαιοῦσθαι ἐκ τῆς πίστεως, viobecia, the relation of affection between 
God and Christians as His children,’ etce., occupy here an entirely subor- 
dinate position. Nevertheless, the tone of the whole epistle is decidedly 
Christian, not only in that it is inspired by that Spirit to which Christ 


referred when He said to James and John: “Know ye not what spirit ye 


1 Strangely enough, Hofmann takes offence 
at what is here said, although he himself 
describes ‘‘ Peter’s mind as one which directly 
apprehended the duty of the moment, as the 
moment presented it, and set about fulfilling 
it by word and deed without circumlocution 
or hesitation,’’ — proof evidently of a practical 
mind. 

2 According to Hofmann, it is not the con- 


ception, but the manner of expression, that 
is that of the O. T.; but is not expression 
determined by conception ? 

8 This, too, Hofmann questions, assigning 
as his reason ch. i. 17; but the expression 
Father is applied to God in the O.T. also 
(Isa. Ixiii. 16; Jer. xxxi. 9), without the rela- 
tion of child being conceived in the same way 


as it is by Paul. 


΄ 


180 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


are of ?” but because there is to be found in it no trace of Mosaic legality, 
or of the national narrowness peculiar to the Jewish people. The Christian 
church is a γένος ἐκλεκτόν just in that it is Christian, and not in any way 
because the greater part of it belongs to the nation of Israel, “into which 
the others have only been ingrafted.” The Mosaic law is not so much as 
mentioned, nor does the expression νόμος once occur. No doubt it is strongly 
insisted upon that Christians should live a holy life; but the obligation is 
deduced not from any law, but from the fact that they are redeemed from 
their ματαία dvactpoe by the τίμιον aiva of Christ, and are born again of seed 
incorruptible, while, as the means through which they are to procure their 
From 
this it follows that the name “ Apostle of the Circumcision” (Weiss), given 


sanctification, the πνεῦμα is mentioned, not the legal letter (a γράμμα). 


to Peter, is inappropriate, if it be understood in a sense different from that 
in Gal. ii. 7, 8. 


It can nowhere be proved from his epistle that circumcision 
Rather is 
he penetrated by O. T. ideas only in so far as they obtain their true fulfil- 
ment in Christianity, and no allusion whatever is made to those of them 
which had already found their realization in Christ. — Further, the epistle 
bears a peculiar character from the traces in it which prove the author to 


had for Peter any significance whatever for the Christian life. 


have been an eye-witness and an ear-witness of Christ. Not only does the . 
apostle style himself μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, but the way in which he 
discourses of the sufferings and glory of Christ is a proof that he speaks 
from a personal experience, the power of which he himself had directly felt. 
Nor this alone. Oftentimes in his expressions the very words he had heard 
from Christ are re-echoéd, and hence the many points of accord, especially 
with the discourses of Christ as these are contained in the synoptic Gospels ; 
ef. chap. i. 4 with Matt. xxv. 34; i. 8 with John xx. 23; i. 10 ff. with Luke 
x. 24; i. 13 with Luke xii. 35; ii. 12 with Matt. v. 10; ii. 17 with Matt. 
xxii. 21; iii. 13-15 with Matt. x. 28; and v. 10, 11, iv. 13, 14, with Matt. v. 
12; v. 3 with Matt. xx. 25, 26; v. 6 with Matt. xxiii. 12.1 

Lastly, the epistle shows an unmistakable kinship with various writings 
of the N. T. Did this consist merely in the occurrence here and there of 


single cognate thoughts, conceptions, or expressions, there would still be no 


1 Hofmann, indeed, disputes that there is 
here any allusion to the words of Christ; he 
admits, however, that it is possible that ‘‘ the 
expression used by our Lord, Matt. v. 16, was 
present to the mind of the apostle when 
writing ii. 12;”’ and he says: * The ὃν οὐκ 


ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε shows clearly enough that it 
is written by one who has seen the Lord.” 
Hofmann is wrong in denying that the words 
μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, v. 1, bear 
the meaning here presupposed. See Hofmann 
in loc. 


INTRODUCTION. ὃ 181 


proof of interdependence. In the whole of the N. T. writings there is con- 
tained a gospel substantially one and the same, and there must have prevailed 
in the intercourse of believers with one another—every allowance being 
made for diversity in the individual—a common mode of thought and ex- 
pression, which had its origin chiefly in the writings of the O. T. But the 
affinity which is apparent between the Epistle of Peter and several of the 
Epistles of Paul and the Epistle of James, goes far beyond this. Among 
Paul’s writings there are several passages in the Epistles to the Romans and 
Ephesians to which Peter’s epistle stands in a relation of dependence. 
Almost all the thoughts in Rom. xii. and xiii. are to be found repeated in 
the Epistle of Peter, —only here they are scattered throughout the whole 
letter; and not detached thoughts alone, but whole trains of thought, in 
which there is a similarity of expression even in what is of secondary mo- 
ment; cf. from Rom. xii., ver. 1 with 1 Pet. ii. 5, ver. 2 with i. 14, vv. 3-8 
with iv. 10, ver. 9 with i. 22, ver. 10 with ii. 17, ver. 13 with iv. 9, more 
especially vv. 14-19 with iii. 8-12; and from chap. xiii., vv. 1-7 with ii. 
13, 14 (see on this Weiss, p. 406 ff.). But echoes of other passages in 
Romans are to be found: cf. Pet. i. 21 with Rom. iv. 24; Pet. ii. 24 with 
Rom. vi. 18; Pet. iii. 22 with Rom. viii. 34; Pet. iv. 1, 2, with Rom. vi. 7 
_ (here it is not the clauses only which correspond: ὁ παθὼν, x.7.4., and ὁ ἀπο- 
θανὼν, x.7.A., but the subsequent thought of Peter: εἰς τὸ μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων, κ.τ.λ.» 
answers to the previous idea of Paul: τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν, x.7.A.); Pet. v. 1 
with Rom. viii. 18; particularly striking is the agreement between Pet. ii. 6 
and Rom. ix. 33 (x. 11).— The kinship between the Epistle of Peter and 
that to the Ephesians is based not on single passages only, but at the same 
time on the composition of the two writings. If our epistle be in super- 
scription and introduction similar to the epistles of Paul, it bears a peculiar 
resemblance to that to the Ephesians, inasinuch as the thanks expressed in 
the latter have reference not to the particular circumstances of a special 
church, but to the common salvation of which the Christians had been made 
partakers; the formula of thanksgiving, too, is in both literally the same: 
εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς, «7.2. (thus 2 Cor.). The contents, too, of the epistles pre- 
sent many points of similarity both in the general exhortations to a walk in 
love towards each other, humility, and meekness, and a renunciation of their 
former heathenish life in fleshly passions and lusts, and in the special exhor- 
tations with respect to domestic relations; further, in the summons to resist 
the devil; and lastly, in the concluding wish of peace. The following par- 
ticular passages may be compared with each other: Pet. i. 1 (ἐκλεκτοῖς. . . 


κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Ocod .. . ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος) and Eph. i. 4 (ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς. .. 


182 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


mpd καταβολῆς κόσμου, εἶναι ju, ἁγίους); Pet. i. 5 and Eph. i. 19; Pet. i. 14 and 
Eph. ii. 3; Pet. i. 18 and Eph. iv. 17; Pet. ii. 4, 5, and Eph. ii. 20-22; Pet. 
ii. 18 and Eph. vi. 5; Pet. iii. 1 and Eph. v. 22; Pet. iii. 18 (προσάγειν) and 
Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12 (apocaywy7); Pet. iii. 22 and Eph. i. 20, 21; Pet. v. 8, 9, 
and Eph. vi. 10 ff. It is also worthy of special remark, that in both epistles 
the goal of the Christian is indicated by the word κληρονομία, and that in both 
the angel world is represented as standing in a relation to Christ’s work of 
redemption; cf. Pet. i. 12 and Eph. iii. 10; Peter seems to make reference 
also to Eph. iv. 8-10. 

The similarity between particular passages of Peter’s epistle and Paul’s 
other epistles is not of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that there 
is a dependence of the former on the latter. If, e.g., Pet. iii. 2, etc., and 
1 Tim. ii. 9 treat of the ornaments of women, and the order in which the 
particular objects are brought forward be in both cases the same, this may 
doubtless be a merely accidental circumstance. Besides, the nomenclature 
varies. —On the other hand, the agreement between particular passages in 
the epistles of James and Peter is of such a kind that it cannot be regarded 
as accidental; see Pet. i. 6, 7, and Jas. i. 2, 3 (comp. ἀγαλλιᾶσθε and χάραν 
ἡγῆσασθε; λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς aNd ὅταν metpacpoicg περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, 
and in both passages the identical τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως) ; further, Pet. 
ii. 1 and Jas. i. 21 (there: ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν κακίαν ; here: ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπα- 
ρίαν καὶ περισσεῖαν κακίας ; there: τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπιποθῆσατε; here, the not 
very dissimilar thought: δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον ; there, the aim: ἕνα ἐν αὐτῳ 
αὐξηθῆτε εἰς σωτηρίαν ; here, the similar thought in the participial clause: τὸν 
δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν) ; lastly, Pet. v. 5-9 and Jas. iv. 6, 7, 10, where 
in both passages there is the same quotation from the O. T., then the exhor- 
tation to humble submission to God, and thereon the summons to withstand 
the devil; besides this, Pet. v. 6 is almost identical with Jas. iv. 10.1 

The dependence of Peter’s epistle on the writings already mentioned, 
whilst it is acknowledged by almost all interpreters (in recent times more 
especially by Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofmann; in like manner, too, by 
Ewald, Reuss, Bleek ; Guericke’s opinion is doubtful), is denied by Mayer- 
hoff, Rauch, and Brickner. Briickner, while admitting that there still 
remains the general impression of so many echoes, which always seems to 


point back to the dependence of Peter’s epistles, is nevertheless of opinion 


1 Although several of the citations from Peter’s epistle are not dependent on them 
the epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, (ef. Hofmann, p. 206 ff.), yet, as is fully 
and from that of James, might lead to the recognized by Hofmann, that in no way alters 
supposition that the passages in question in the matter itself. 


INTRODUCTION. 183 


that the similarity can be explained simply from the circumstance that cog- 
nate ideas in the minds of the apostles called for cognate terms, especially 
if there be taken into account the power of primitive Christian tradition on 
early Christian style, and the prevalent modes of expression which had arisen 
This 
result, however, he obtains in the following way: He resolves the similar 


out of conceptions formed under the influence of the Old Covenant. 


thoughts into their several elements; and having directed special attention 
This 
process of separation is of necessity misleading, and if it be not employed, 


to these, he lays particular stress on the differences he discovers. 


the similarity is so great that there can be no doubt as to the dependence 
Weiss has demonstrated this at full 
length with respect to-the relation between the Epistle of Peter and those to 


of the one composition on the other. 
the Romans (chaps. xii. and xiii.) and Ephesians. He is wrong, however, 
when he says that the dependence is on the side of Paul, and not on that of 
Peter. 
That it is entirely improbable that Paul should, quite contrary to his usual 


With regard to Rom. xii. and xiii., it must be remembered — (1) 


custom, have been at the trouble to collect the thoughts here arranged from 
an epistle where they occur in a quite different connection; whilst there is in 
itself nothing improbable in the supposition, —if he were acquainted with 
the Epistle to the Romans, and more especially the above chapters, — that 
.Peter wrote under the influence of Paul’s expression in the different passages 
of his epistle, where the course of his own thoughts suggested to him the 
same ideas. (2) That the views of Weiss necessarily lead to a depreciation 
of the literary capability of Paul. Weiss himself says that Paul’s depend- 
ence on Peter caused him to place in chap. xii. 6,7, διακονία, in the narrower 
sense, which is “evidently jarring,” between the three spiritual gifts; to 
introduce in ver. 11, “ without any purpose,” the exhortation τῇ ἐλπίδι χαίροντες; 
to put the thought in ver. 15 in the wrong place; and in ver. 16 to interpo- 
late the idea quite inappropriately.1_ As to the Epistle to the Ephesians, it 
must be remarked —(1) That no foreign influence can be recognized in it, 
when compared with the other Pauline epistles. Its dissimilarity is to be 
(2) That 
the special peculiarities by which this epistle is distinguished from the other 


explained from its own individual tendency as a circular letter. 


1 Since Weiss himself uses the expressions 
above quoted, the accusation that he detracts 
from Paul’s independence is certainly not 
without justification. If he complain that 
even in this commentary regard is not paid 


to ‘‘the general considerations’ (pp. 403-406 


in Der Petrin. Lehrbegriff ), we must observe, 
in reply, that general possibilities do not issue 
in much, more especially when concrete cir- 
cumstances prevent that being regarded as a 
reality which is in itself possible. 


184 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


letters of Paul, even from that to the Colossians, have nothing whatsoever 
in common with the Epistle of Peter. In addition to this, let it be noted 
- that the independence of Paul, which is apparent in every one of his epistles, 
stands in sharpest contradiction with the assumption that the apostle was 
indebted to those passages in Peter’s epistle; whilst, on the other hand, the 
leaning which Peter had to the O. T. and to the words of Christ, shows that + 
to allow his mode of expression to be shaped by the influence of another 
was in no way opposed to the peculiar character of his mind, but entirely in 
harmony with it, as part of a nature “easily determined, receptive, and 
peculiarly open to personal impressions” (Schott). 


REMARK. — Weiss, in his essay entitled Die Petrinische Frage, written for 
the purpose of defending his views on the dependence of the epistles to the 
Romans and Ephesians against objections raised to them, substantially repeats 
what he had formerly said, and hardly adduces any thing new. In denying that 
there subsists any relation of dependence between Rom. vi. 7 and Pet. iv. 12, 
and between Rom. vi. 2, 18, and Pet. ii. 24, Weiss overlooks the fact that the 
resemblance rests not alone on the two expressions ὁ ἀποθανών and ὁ παθὼν σαρκί, 
and that his interpretation of ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι is an erroneous one. A 
more minute examination of the several clauses of chaps. xii. and xiii. of Romans 
can result merely in the conclusion that it is not in itself impossible that this 
epistle was conceived under the influence of Peter’s letter. But the priority of 
the latter is not thereby proved. The hortatory design of this epistle explains 
why it is that Peter has confined himself to these two chapters, and why in his 
composition are to be found none “οὗ the developments of Christian doctrinal 
conceptions peculiar to Paul.’? Besides, it must be noted that although Peter 
says nothing of the relation of the νόμος and the ἔργα τοῦ νόμου, he is completely 
at one with Paul in the fundamental conception that sinful man can obtain 
salvation only through faith in Christ. — With respect to the affinity between 
the Epistle of Peter and that to the Ephesians, Weiss himself admits that 
‘‘ evidence for the originality of the Petrine passages can be adduced with still 
less strictness from a comparison of details.’? Weiss wrongly affirms that the 
Epistle to the Ephesians is related to that of Peter precisely in those very 
points which distinguish it from the rest of Paul’s writings. For the peculiar 
and distinctive character of the Epistle to the Ephesians does not consist only 
in that it is a circular letter (an assertion which, however, is decidedly denied 
by many critics, and particularly by Meyer; see his commentary, Finl., § 1), 
and that its commencement is of an import more general than that of the other 
Pauline epistles, but more especially in the whole diction, which, in the rich 
fulness of its expression, bears an impress different from the rest of the 
apostle’s writings. That this peculiarity, however, cannot be traced to a 


INTRODUCTION. 185 


knowledge, on the apostle’s part, of Peter’s epistle, needs not to be proved. 
When Weiss finds it a characteristic of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that its 
* ethical exhortation culminates in advices for the several stations of life,’’ he 
must have forgotten that exactly the same is the case with the Epistle to the 
Colossians, which plainly was not written under the influence of Peter’s epistle. 


The dependence of this epistle on Paul and James is not, as Schott 
assumes, to be attributed to Peter’s intention to show the agreement of his 
doctrine with that of these two men. For it is precisely their doctrinal 
peculiarities which are not echoed in the related passages; and altogether a 
doctrinal intent is nowhere discernible. It must therefore be assumed that 
Peter, from his familiarity with these epistles, was so penetrated by their 
prevailing modes of thought and expression, and the connection of their 
ideas, that recollections of these, although not unconsciously, still involun- 
tarily,! became interwoven with his style. Such reminiscences, too, would 
press themselves upon his mind the more readily in the case of the Epistle 
to the Ephesians, that it was addressed to the same churches in Asia Minor 
which Peter felt himself urged to confirm and strengthen in their state of 
grace.? 

With all this dependence, however, the epistle has still its peculiar im- 
Although it 


abounds in conceptions which are common to all the apostles, there are yet 


press different from that of the epistles of Paul and James. 


to be found in it not only particular expressions and terms, but also many 
ideas, which are foreign to the other writings of the N. T. Thus it is dis- 
tinctive of this epistle, that the work of salvation is characterized as some- 
thing after which the prophets searched, and into which the angels desired 
to look (i. 10-12); that the Christians are called πάροικοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι 
(ii. 11); that the exhortation to a holy walk is based on this, that thereby 


1 Schott’s opinion is far-fetched, that Peter’s 
continual references to the Pauline epistles 
arose from his tender anxiety lest he should 
add to ‘‘ the disquiet and apprehension of his 
readers by giving any direct expression to 
his apostolic individuality, unknown as it was 
to them.” He thinks, that, for this reason, 
Peter had, “ without mentioning his intention, 
unnoticed, and, as it were, by chance, here 
and there, sometimes more distinctly, and 
sometimes less so, allowed his readers to 
hear the well-known voice of their real 
pastor.” 


2 Hofmann goes too far in maintaining that 
Peter “ purposely ” connected his epistle with 
that to the Ephesians, making the opening 
passages of the former thus similar to those 
of the latter, “‘in order, that, from the com- 
mencement, his heathen readers must perceive 
his intention, and recognize the harmony sub- 
sisting between that which was written by 
the Apostle of the Circumcision and that 
formerly penned by the Apostle of the Hea- 
then.”? 


taken views which Hofmann has formed as 


This assertion arises from the mis- 


to the design of the epistle. 


186 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


the heathen would recognize the groundlessness of their accusations (ii. 12, 
iii. 16); and that the endurance of wrong is termed a χάρις. Further, pe- 
culiar to this epistle are: the exhibition of Christ’s sufferings as a type of 
their own sufferings for the faith’s sake (ii. 21 ff.) ; the idea that Christ has 
preached to the spirits in prison (iii. 19, iv. 6); the consolation drawn from 
the similarity of the affliction of the Christian brethren (v. 9); Sarah, in 
her subjection to Abraham, held up to women as an example (iii. 6); the 
comparison drawn between baptism and the flood, and the designation of 
the former as συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα (iii. 21); the thought that the suf- 
ferings of Christ form the beginning of judgment (iv. 12); the exhortation 
to the elders (v. 1-3); the term ἀρχιποιμῆν as (v. 4) applied to Christ, ete. 
It cannot justly be urged against this epistle, that it is wanting in logical 
development of thought. Since the epistle bears a hortatory character, 
there is nothing to excite surprise when the author makes a transition 
from more general to more special precepts, and again from more special 
to more general, and when he, as the spirit moves him, builds now one 
exhortation, now another, on this or on that fact of redemption, finding 
here again occasion for fresh admonitions. But that with all this there is 
no want of a definite train of thought, is proved by the above summary 
of contents. The style does not abound in aphorisms, like that of the dis- 
courses of Jesus and the Epistle of James, but is distinguished by thoughts 
connected by means of participles, relative pronouns, copulative particles, as 
in the Pauline epistles. A peculiarity, too, is to be found in the frequent 
condensation of several conceptions into a substantival or adjectival idea by 
means of the definite article (chap. i. 3, 5, 10, 12, 18, 14, 15, 17, etc.) ; further, 
the frequent use of the particle ὡς (chap. i. 14, 19, ii. 1, 5, 16, iv. 10, 11, 15, 
16, v. 8); lastly, the construction of the participle, both with an imperative 
either preceding (i. 13, 14, 22, ii. 1, 4, 16) or following it (i. 18, 28, ii. 1, 2, 
5,7), as also its employment in an absolute and independent way, without 
being joined to a particular finite verb (ii. 18, iii. 1, 7, 9, 16, iv. 8). 

Whilst De Wette looks on the epistle as hardly worthy of an apostle, 
others praise, and rightly too, the freshness and vividness of its style, its 
“richness in Christian doctrine,” and the ‘‘noble artlessness which feels 
itself satisfied and blessed in the simple and believing reception, and calm 
and quiet possession, of the facts of a divinely given salvation” (Schott). 


1 Grotius: ‘“‘Habet haec epistola τὸ σῴφο- alacritas Petrini sermonis lectorem suavissime 
δρόν, conveniens ingenio principis aposto- retinens.” 


lorum.” Bengel: ‘‘ Mirabilis est gravitas et 


INTRODUCTION. 187 


SEC. 3. — THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE; THE TIME AND 
PLACE OF ITS COMPOSITION. 


Whilst the epistle itself gives no precise information as to who the 
readers addressed are, its superscription shows them to have been Christians 
in Asia Minor, more especially those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia 
(by which term proconsular Asia is to be understood), and Bithynia; that 
is to say, the Christians in regions where Paul and his companions, accord- 
ing to his epistles and the Acts of the Apostles, had first preached the gospel 
and founded the Christian Church. —In ancieut times the prevalent view 
was that the epistle was addressed to Jewish Christians. This opinion was 
entertained by Eusebius, Didymus, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, Oecumenius, 
Theophylactus; and among more recent authors, by Erasmus, Calvin, Gro- 
tius, Bengel, Augusti, Hug, Bertholdt, Pott, and others. Several inter- 
preters, like Wolf, Gerhard, Jachmann, etc., have modified this view, in so 
far that they hold the epistle to have been written principally (principaliter) 
no doubt for Jewish Christians, but in a certain sense (quodammodo) for 
Gentile Christians also (fidei interna ac loci externa unitate illis conjunctos). 
This is the position taken up by Weiss. He assumes that the majority of 
church-members were Jewish Christians, and that these were regarded by 
Peter as the real body of the congregations; for this reason, and not think- 
ing of the admixture of heathen which had everywhere taken place, the 
apostle addresses the Jewish Christians only. Weiss’s view is very closely 
bound up with his opinion, that the churches in question had already been 
founded before the missionary journey of Paul to Asia Minor, by Jews of 
that region who had been converted at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost 
or subsequently to it. This assertion, however, is not only without any 
foundation whatsoever in history, but is opposed to all that is told us of 
the Apostle Paul’s labors in Asia Minor, in his epistles and in the Acts of the 
Apostles, inasmuch as there is in neither the smallest hint that when he 
commenced his work there, a Christian church was in existence anywhere in 
that land. It is surely inconceivable that Paul should have pursued his 
missionary work in that region without in any way taking notice of the 
church already established there, and all the more so if that church had by 
that time risen to such importance as to draw on itself the persecuting hate 
of the heathen. — The proofs adduced by Weiss, that the epistle was addressed 
to Jewish-Christian churches, are as follow: 1. The designation of the 
readers in the superscription of the letter; 2. The style of expression so 
strongly based on the O. T.; 3. The occurrence of several passages, namely, 


188 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


chaps. i. 14, 18, ii. 9, 10, iii. 6, iv. 3, which point apparently to Gentile but 
in reality to Jewish Christians as readers. The first proof falls to the ground 
when the expression ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι διασπορᾶς Πόντου, x.7.4., is correctly 
understood (see Comment. toi. 1). With regard to the second proof, how- 
ever, it must be noted that the references to the O. T. were for Gentile 
Christians (who of course cannot be conceived of without some acquaintance 
with the O. T.) not less intelligible than for Jewish Christians. Paul 
himself makes frequent enough allusion to the O. T. in his epistles addressed 
to Gentile Christians (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. i 19, 31, ii. 9, 16, iii. 19, 20, ete.).1— 
With respect to the third proof, the previous condition of the readers in the 
passages quoted is not in appearance only, but as a matter of fact, charac- 
terized as heathenish, and that not positively simply, but negatively also. 
For in these verses there is not the faintest intimation that the readers 
before their conversion had stood, as Israelites, in the covenant relation to 
God to which Paul invariably makes reference when he speaks to Jews 
or of them. The whole character of the epistle speaks not against, but 
much more in favor of, the assumption that the churches here addressed, at 
least the larger part of them, were composed not of Jewish but of Gentile 
Christians. In favor, too, of this view, is the circumstance that these same 
churches are represented as suffering persecution, not at the hands of the 
Jews, but of the heathen; which goes to show that the latter did not regard 
these Christians merely as a sect within Judaism, as would naturally have 
been the case had they been formerly Jews, or for the most part Jews. The 
persecuting zeal of the heathen was directed against it only when Chris- 
tianity began to draw its professors no longer from Judaism chiefly, but 
from heathendom; and it was not Jewish but Gentile Christian churches 
which were the objects of detestation. Justly, then, did Augustine (Contra 
Faustum, xii. 89) already, and Cassiodorus (De IJnstit. Div. Lit., ii. p. 516), 
later on, Luther and Wetstein, and in recent times Steiger, De Wette, 


1 Weiss wrongly tries (Die Petrin. Frage, 
p. 623) to neutralize the evidential value of 
this remark, by saying ‘* that it does not touch 
the very pith of his argument, which consists 
in this, that Peter expressly quotes the O. T., 
as Paul does, only in i. 16, ii. 6.” For, on 
the one hand, Paul, too, employs O. T. ex- 
pressions and phrases without adding yéypar- 
ται or the like, e.g., in the passage above 
quoted, 1 Cor. ii. 16. On the other had, the 
O. T. expressious employed by Peter without 


the formula of quotation are of such a kind 
as to have been intelligible to the Christians 
as such, irrespective of whether they formerly 
had been heathens or Jews; nor do they by 
any means ‘‘ presuppose so intimate a knowl- 
edge of the O. T. as is conceivable only in 
With 
regard to their acquaintance with the O. T., 


those who had formerly been Jews.” 


cf. Meyer on Rom. vii. 1, where Paul speaks 
of the Christians, without exception, as ywao- 


κοντεσ νόμον, 


INTRODUCTION. 189 


Briickner, Mayerhoff, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann, as also Neander, Gue- 
ricke, Reuss, Lechler, Schaff, Jul. Kostlin, Bleek, and others, pronounce in 
favor of the opinion that the churches in question must be held to have 
been composed of Gentile Christians. The hypothesis of Benson, Michaelis, 
Credner, and some others, that this epistle is designed for such Gentile 
Christians as had before their conversion to Christianity been “ proselytes 
of the gate,” is evidently a purely arbitrary one. 

As to their condition, we gather from the epistle for the most part only, 
that the churches were at that time exposed to many persecutions at the 
hands of the heathen, which, however, consisted more in contumelies and 
revilings than in actual ill-treatment. That these manifold persecutions 
were instituted by the state, cannot, with Hug, Mayerhoff, and Neander, be 
concluded from the expressions ἀπολογία and κακοποιός in iii. 15, 16. Schott’s 
conjecture, that they were connected with those which arose under Nero, is 
refuted on the one hand by their character as described in the epistle, and 
on the other by the testimony of history, which confines the Neronic perse- 
cution solely to Rome. A too gloomy picture of the moral condition of the 
readers must not be drawn from the exhortations given to them relative to 
the persecutions, although it is not incredible that the shortcomings brought 
here and there to light by the persecutions may have induced the apostle to 
compose this epistle; open blame is nevertheless not expressed. Nor is 
there any thing to indicate that the church was disturbed by heretical tend- 
encies, or opposing parties of Jewish and Gentile Christians. — The notion 
that Peter was personally acquainted with his readers, is opposed as much 
by the want of any personal relations on his part to his readers, as by the 
distinction he makes between himself and those who had proclaimed the 
gospel to them. 

Only one passage (v. 13) has reference to the place where the epistle was 
composed. From the circumstance that Peter sends greetings from the 
church (not from his wife) in Babylon, it may correctly be inferred that 
during the composition of the epistle he was in that city. But whether by 
Babylon is to be understood the Babylon properly so called, on the banks of 
the Euphrates, or Rome rather, the capital of the world, is a question by 
no means settled as yet (cf. on this the remarks on the passage). It is not 
at all improbable in itself that Peter was for a time in Babylon proper, and 
labored there as an apostle, the less so that from of old, in that very city, 
there were large Jewish communities, which stood in intimate connection 
with Jerusalem. 

In order to settle more precisely the time of the composition, it must be 


190 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


observed principally: (1) That the epistle is directed to Pauline churches; 
(2) That it presupposes the acquaintance of its author with the Epistle to 
the Ephesians. If these two points, above proved to be correct, are estab- 
lished, the epistle can neither, as Weiss assumes, have been composed at 
the beginning of Paul’s third missionary journey, nor, as Briickner con- 
jectures, at the end of it; its origin must be relegated, rather, to a later 
date. Assuming that the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul 
during his captivity at Rome, Wieseler would place the composition of 
our epistle in the latter part of that captivity. But the following facts 
militate against this: on the one hand, that the persecutions of the Chris- 
tians in the provinces of Asia Minor, which occasioned this letter of Peter, 
are mentioned neither in the Epistle to the Ephesians nor in that to the 
Colossians; and, on the other, that in the former there is no reference to 
those false teachers whose appearance these epistles presuppose. Peter, 
too, if he had composed his epistle at that time, would certainly not have 
left the imprisonment of Paul unnoticed, the more especially that he was 
writing to a Pauline church. The letter can have been composed, then, 
only after the two-years’ imprisonment of Paul.in Rome. Ewald and 
Hofmann are of opinion that it was written immediately after his release 
from captivity. But it is more than improbable that an epistle addressed 
to a Pauline church was composed when Paul was still alive and engaged 
in work. If such had been the case, Peter would certainly not have omitted 
to specify the relation in which he stood to Paul, and the motive which 
induced him to write to a Pauline church, since by so doing he was evi- 
dently encroaching by his apostolic labors on the missionary territory of 
Paul.1 Accordingly, it must be assumed that the epistle was not written 
until after Paul had been removed by martyrdom from the field of apos- 
tolic labor, and withal at a time when this fact had become known to the 
churches, otherwise Peter could not have passed it over in silence. We 
must agree, then, with those critics who place the composition of the 
epistle in the closing years of Peter’s lifetime, at the earliest in the year 66 
(as Reuss, Bleek, Wiesinger, Schott). If Peter died under Nero, that is, 
about the year 67 A.D., the period which extends from the Neronic perse- 
cution of the Christians and the death of Paul — especially as he suffered 
martyrdom soon after the conflagration in Rome, 64 A.D. — to the time 


1 Hofmann’s remark is singular: Thatthose Peter would only have been guilty of an 
only were guilty of an interference who at- encroachment if he had aimed at forming a 
tempted to turn away from Paul the Gentile- number of Gentile-Christian churches. 
Christian churches founded by him, and that 


INTRODUCTION. 191 


when this epistle was composed, is long enough to allow of it seeming 
natural that Peter in his epistle should leave those two events unnoticed.} 
All that we learn from the epistle as to the circumstances in which the 
churches in question were placed, and, in particular, respecting the perse- 
For 
although the Christians had to suffer persecution even during the time of 


cutions to which they were exposed, is in harmony with this date. 


Paul’s missionary labors (cf. 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14; 2 Thess. i. 4, etc.), yet 
this was by no means so generally the case —a statement Hofmann unjustly 
calls in question —as our epistle seems to presuppose, but took place for 
the most part then only when the heathen were instigated by the Jews 
(Acts xvii. 5, xviii. 12), or by particular individuals to whose interests 
Christianity was opposed (cf. Acts xvi. 16 ff., xix. 23 ff.). And albeit 
Tacitus records that the Christians, even so early as the burning of Rome, 
were the odium humani generis and per flagitia invisi, they could have begun 
to be so only after Christianity had shown itself a power capable of advancing 
on heathendom and convulsing it. This it became only in consequence 
of Paul’s missionary labor ; and Weiss is not justified in taking advantage of 
the fact to support his views as to the early date of composition. On the 
other hand, the epistle shows that, at the time of its origin, the hostility of 
the Gentiles towards Christianity had not risen to such a height that the 
heathen authorities sought to suppress that religion as a religio nova fraught 
with danger to the state, but had confined itself as yet to slanders and the 
like, to which the heathen population were incited for the reasons given 
in chap. iv. All this, in like manner, harmonizes with the date above 
mentioned. Weiss concludes that the epistle belongs to a time considerably 
earlier, from the following circumstances: “that these sufferings were for 


1 The opposite view (Hofmann’s), that the 
epistle was written between the autumn of 
the year 63 and that of 64, is based on assump- 
tions, the correctness of which cannot be 
proved. Hofmann supposes, that, immedi- 
ately after Paul’s release, Peter undertook 
the journey from Jerusalem to Rome, passing 
through Asia Minor by way of Ephesus, 
withal “in order that he might restrain those 
whose enmity towards Paul threatened to 
produce a dissension which would have been 
specially injurious to the church of the world’s 
capital;’’? further, that during this journey 
he became acquainted with the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, with which he ‘ purposely’ con- 


nected his own; and that he took Mark, who 
was with him when he composed his epistle, 
away with him from Ephesus, ‘ because that 
of all the Jewish converts who, without be- 
longing to the company of the Apostle of 
the Gentiles, were preaching Christ in Rome 
at the time of Paul’s imprisonment, he was, 
perhaps, the only one whose conduct towards 
Peter was influenced by love instead of by 
jealousy and enmity; ” that, immediately upon 
his arrival at Rome, he wrote his epistle. All 
these suppositions are purely fictions, nor 
can the slightest trace of them be found in 
the Epistle of Peter. 


192 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


the Christians still something new, at which they wondered;” and “that 
to the heathen it was a thing novel and strange that the Christians should 
renounce their vicious life;” and from this also, that “the apostle still 
expresses the naive (!) hopé that the heathen, on becoming better acquainted 
with the holy walk of the Christians, would cease from their enmity, as 
having arisen from ignorance.” The conclusion, however, is unwarranted, 
the more so that, on the views above expressed as to the origin of the 
churches of Asia Minor and the date of the epistle’s composition, the time 
during which the churches had existed was even shorter than on the theory 
supported by Weiss; according to the latter, they had already been in 
existence for about twenty years; according to the former, for only about 
fifteen. Under these circumstances, which he has omitted to take into 
account, Weiss can naturally draw nothing favorable to his own opinions 
from the expression occurring in chap. ii. 2: ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη. The men- 
tion, too, of the νεώτεροι, in contrast to the πρεσβύτεροι (chap. v. 5), is not 
evidence that the epistle was composed at an earlier date, for there is no 
proof that such νεώτεροι were no longer to be found in the churches of 
Asia Minor, say, ten years after the time mentioned by Weiss. But the 
chief reason which Weiss adduces as proof that the churches in question 
were not Gentile-Christian, but Judaeo-Christian communities which had 
already been in existence before the apostolic career of Paul, and that 
Peter’s epistle had been written before the literary labors of the former 
had commenced, is his own affirmation, that the doctrinal system of Peter’s 
epistle “is preparatory to that of Paul.” This assertion, in itself erroneous 
and opposed to the real state of the case (cf. more particularly Jul. Kostlin, 
Einheit und Mannigfaltigkeit in d. neutest. Lehre, in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche 
Theologie, 1858), can be brought as evidence of the early composition of 
the epistle the less that it in no way admits of proof that Paul became 
acquainted with the opinions of Peter by means only of this epistle, and 
that Peter afterwards renounced his own system for that of Paul. From 
the presence of Silvanus and Mark with Peter at the time he composed this 
epistle, nothing with any exactitude can be concluded, since the former is 
mentioned in Acts xviii. 5 as the companion of Paul; the latter, although 
he was in Rome (Col. iv. 10) during Paul’s first imprisonment, and during 
the second (2 Tim. iv. 11) in Asia Minor, may have been with Peter at any 
other time. 


INTRODUCTION. 193 


SEC. 4.— AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 


The epistle is one of the writings of the N. T., the authenticity of which 
is most clearly established from antiquity. Although in the works of the 
_ Apostolic Fathers, Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, and Ignatius, there are no 
formal citations from the epistle, but only echoes of it, the direct reference 
of which cannot with certainty be established, still, on the other hand, it is 
undeniable, not only that it is mentioned in the so-called Second Epistle of 
Peter, but that Polycarp also quotes verbatim several passages from it, thus 
justifying the remark of Eusebius (H. E., iv. 14), that Polycarp had already 
made use of it; we have it likewise on the testimony of Eusebius, that 
Papias did the same in his work, λογίων κυριακῶν ξέηγήδεις. Irenaeus, Tertul- 
lian, Clemens Alex., Origen, Cyprian, quote passages from the epistle with 
direct reference to it by name, and that without the smallest hint that 
It is found 


also in the older Peschito, which contains only the three catholic epistles. 


there had ever a doubt been entertained as to its genuineness. 


Eusebius justly, then, numbers it with the Homologumena. In the so-called 
Muratorian Canon our epistle is doubtless not definitely quoted, but the 
passage to which reference is made is not of such a nature that it can be 
used to impugn the authenticity of the epistle.1_ The words of Leontius of 


1 The passage runs thus: ‘ Epistola sane 
Judae et superscripti Johannis duas in ca- 
tholica habentur. Et sapientia ab amicis Salo 
monis in honorem ipsius scripta. Apocalypsis 
etiam Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus, 
quam quidem ex nostris legi in ecclesia 
nolunt.” — Hug, who looks upon the whole 
document as a translation from the Greek, 
puts a full stop after Johannis, and connects 
the words Apocalypsis etiam Johannis with 
what precedes; he regards tantum as a 
misunderstood translation of μόνην, and quam 
Gue- 
ricke agrees with Hug, only with this differ- 


quidem (or gquidam) = fis παρέξ τινες. 


ence, that, instead of ἧς παρέξ τινες, he con- 
siders ἣν τινες to be the original text. — 
Wieseler likewise unites the first words with 
the preceding passage, and then reads quem 
quidam, so that the sense is: ‘‘ Of Peter also 
we accept as much (as of John, who was 
previousiy mentioned, i.e., two epistles and 
an Apocalypse), which some amongst us 


would not allow to be read in the Church.” 
— Dietlein’s conjecture and explanation is still 
simpler (Die Kath. Briefe, Th. I. p. 47). Ac- 
cording to it, instead of Apocalypsis, there 
should be Apocalypses, and the passage 
would be translated: “ Furthermore, of 
Apocalypses we accept only those of John 
and Peter, which (latter) some amongst us 
would not allow to be read in the church.” 
— Thiersch’s change of tantum into unam 
epistolam, and of the words guam quidem 
into alteram quidam, is rather too bold. 
According to Hofmann, the epistle is not 
alluded to in the Fragment; he, like Hug, 
accepts an original Greek document, and 
takes the first half of the passage to say of 
the Epistle of Jude, and of the two, as stated 
in the superscription, by John (consequently 
the first is not included, for it has no super- 
scription), that they are valued in the Church 
as utterances of wisdom written by friends 
of Solomon (i.e., Christ) to his honor; in 


194 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


Byzantium do not prove that Theodoret of Mopsuestia disbelieved in its 
genuineness (Contr. Nestor. et Eutych., iii. 14), on which Theodorus: “ob 
quam causam, ut arbitror, ipsam epistolam Jacobi et alias deinceps aliorum 
catholicas abrogat et antiquat.”* The fact, however, that the Paulicians, 
according to the testimony of Petrus Siculus (Hist. Manich., p. 17), rejected 
it, plainly does not affect the question. 

In more recent times, Cludius (Uransichten des Christenthums) was the 
first to deny the epistle’s genuineness — on grounds, however, entirely insuf- 
ficient, the weightiest of them being, that in thought and expression it bears 
a too great similarity to the Pauline epistles ever to have been composed by 
Peter. This is what brought Eichhorn to the hypothesis that the epistle 
was written by some one who had 707 a long time been connected with Paul, 
But as this 
cannot be applicable to Peter, and yet as all worth must not be denied to 


and had consequently adopted his current ideas and phrases. 


ecclesiastical tradition, Eichhorn goes farther, and concludes that Peter 
supplied the material, but that Mark worked it up into the epistle before 
us.1 Bertholdt, while justly rejecting this hypothesis, has defended the 
opinion hinted at already by Hieronymus, and more definitely expressed by 
Baronius, that the epistle was not originally written in Greek (but in Ara- 
maic; according to Baronius, in Hebrew), and translated by an interpreter 
(Baronius holds by Mark, Bertholdt by Silvanus) into Greek. But this 
hypothesis is not less arbitrary than that of Eichhorn; for, on the one hand, 
it is an assertion incapable of proof that Peter could not have been familiar 
with the Greek language; and, on the other, as much the entire diction of the 
epistle as the harmony with the corresponding passages in the epistles of Paul 
and James, and the whole matter of quotation from the O. T., are evidence 
against any other than a Greek original. De Wette speaks with some vacil- 
lation as to the genuineness.? He recognizes, indeed, the weight of the 
external testimony, and thinks it would be hazardous in the face of it to 


the second part of the passage he understands the tradition of the Church, from the earliest 


the writer to say : We so far accept the times, unanimously pronounces Peter to be 


revelations both of John and Peter, as, indeed, 


some of us will not allow them to be read 
in the Church. 

1 Ewald’s assertion is no less arbitrary, 
that Peter, not being able to speak and write 
Greek fluently, employed Silvanus to write 
the epistle. 

2 Reuss, too (Gesch. d. heil. Schriften 
N. 7.), while, no doubt, recognizing that 


the author, still thinks that there is much 
in the epistle (more especially its dependence 
on the Pauline epistles already mentioned, 
without any understanding of the system of 
Paul) which appears strange as coming from 
Peter. He himself, however, attempts to 
refute his own objections, though without 
being able to make up his mind to acknowl- 
edge decidedly the authenticity of the epistle. 


INTRODUCTION. 195 


condemn the epistle as spurious; yet still he is of opinion that its character 
is evidence rather against than for its genuineness, — especially on account 
of its want of distinctive features, and the reminiscences of the epistles 
already repeatedly mentioned. In reply, it must be urged that the epistle 
is in no wise wanting in individual impress, and that the writings referred 
to, if Peter had read and become familiar with them, might have left such 
an impression on him that echoes of them should be discernible without this 
in any way interfering with a free and independent development of thought, 
or standing in contradiction to the personal and apostolic character of the 
composition. That the Tiibingen school should hold this epistle to be spu- 
rious, was of course to be expected from its views respecting the apostolic 
and post-apostolic age.1 The reasons which Schwegler urges against the 
genuineness are the following: (1) The want of any definite external 
occasion, and the general character of its contents and aim. — But sucha 
want is not apparent, and the general character is to be explained, partly by 
the fact that the apostle was personally unacquainted with the members 
of the church, and partly by the designation of the epistle as a circular 
letter. (2) The want of any literary or theological character bearing the 
impress of individuality. —It has, however, been shown in § 2, that in the 
epistle there is no want of individuality; but that this must necessarily 
be as sharply defined as in Paul and John, is an unwarrantable demand. 
(3) The want of any inner connection of thought. — But the tendency of 
the epistle is opposed to any such “firm, definite progression of thought” 
as Schwegler demands, and as is to be found in the Pauline epistles. (4) It 
was impossible that Peter, while laboring in the far East at a time and ina 
region destitute of any means of literary communication, could have had in 
his hand the later epistles of Paul—supposing these to be genuine —so 
short a time after their composition. — But in Peter’s epistle there are 
no echoes of the latest of Paul’s epistles. It cannot be denied that between 
the composition of this epistle and that to the Ephesians, a period of time 
elapsed sufficiently long to allow of the possibility of Peter’s having become 
acquainted with the latter; nor will it be disputed that even before his resi- 
dence in Babylon Peter might have known it. (5) The impossibility — on 
the assumption of its having been composed in Babylon — of harmonizing 
the Neronic persecution, presupposed in the epistle, with the martyrdom of 
Peter in Rome during that persecution. — But the supposition that the per- 


1 Pfleiderer’s opinion, that the Apostle insipid Paulinism peculiar to later times (see 
Peter was in favor of a Judaic Christianity, on this §2, p.16 f.), must necessarily lead 
whilst the epistle expresses a feeble and him to deny the authenticity also. 


196 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


secution here referred to was the Neronic finds no support in the epistle; 
nor is it by any means a necessary assumption for “the friends of the con- 
servative school of historians, and a positive criticism,” that the persecution 
referred to be the Neronic. — For his theory that the epistle was written in 
post-apostolic times, and withal under Trajan, Schwegler chiefly depends 
(here Pfleiderer agrees with him) on this, that the persecution presupposed 
in the epistle is not the Neronic, but the Trajanic; ard for the truth of his 
assertion he brings the following proofs: (1) The calm, unimpassioned 
tone of the epistle, as contrasted with the impression which the Neronic 
(2) Under Nero the Christians were 


persecuted, inasmuch as they were accused of participation in fire-raising, 


persecution made upon the Christians. 


that is to say, on account of a definite crime; but at the time of this letter 
they suffered persecution as Christians (ὡς χριστιανοί), on whom suspicion 
was sought to be thrown on account of their general behavior (ὡς κακοποιοί). 
(3) It is incapable of proof, and incredible, that the Neronie persecution 
extended beyond Rome. (4) The epistle takes for granted investigations, 
with regular trial and under legal forms; whilst the Neronic persecution 
was a tumultuary act of popularlaw. (5) The position of Christianity in 
Asia Minor, presupposed in the epistle, corresponds with the description 
of it given in Pliny’s letter to Trajan. — Of all these, however, this one 
point alone must be conceded, that the persecution referred to cannot be 
regarded as due directly to the burning of Rome —all the other assertions 
being based simply on arbitrary assumptions or on false interpretations. 
It is also entirely out of place for Schwegler to understand the formula of 
salutation (v. 12) symbolically, so as to find in it the expression of the later 
church tradition “as to the presence of Peter in Rome, along with his 
ἑρμενευτήῆς Mark,” and to assert that v. 2 points to an ecclesiastico-political 


constitution (!) which had overspread the whole of Christendom, and to the 


1 In opposition to Schwegler, it must be 
remarked: (1) The passionless tone would 
remain equally admirable in the Trajanic 
persecution as under that of Nero; any other 
style would have been hardly becoming an 
apostle. (2) From the first, and not under 
Trajan alone, the Christians had to suffer 
from the very fact of their being Christians. 
(8) Although the persecution of Nero, i.e., 
instituted, did 
not extend beyond Rome, still, in his day, 


the Christians might, through the hatred of 


the one which he himself 


the people, have had to endure persecution 
in the provinces as well. (4) No mention 
is made in our epistle of any judicial perse- 
cution of the Christians according to legal 
form. (5) The description given in Pliny’s 
letter does not prove that the persecution 
mentioned here was that under Trajan; in 
the latter, the Christians were punished for- 
mally with death; whilst there is nothing 
in our epistle to show that such took place in 


the former. 


INTRODUCTION. os ee 


sway of hierarchical tendencies (!) which had already forced their way into 
it. Schwegler sees the real design of the epistle expressed in the passage 
v. 12, according to which “it is simply the attempt on the part of one of 
Paul’s followers to reconcile the two opposing schools of Peter and Paul, 
by putting into the mouth of Peter, as testimony to the orthodoxy of his 
fellow-apostle Paul, a somewhat Petrine-colored presentation of the Pauline 
system.” Schwegler seeks to establish this hypothesis, which even Pfleiderer 
calls in question, thus: that, on the one hand, in the epistle are to be found 
“almost all the chief conceptions and fundamental ideas” of Paul; on the 
other, the latter’s doctrine of justification is wanting, and thoughts, views, 
and expressions occur which are peculiar to Petrinism. It is not to be 
denied that Schwegler, in carrying out his idea, has sought out every point 
which could in any way be used in its favor; his labor, however, has been 
in vain— the untenableness of the hypothesis being too apparent. For if 
the maintenance of the churches in the gospel preached to them be a matter 
obviously near to the apostle’s heart, yet in its whole composition there is no 
justification for the assertion that the epistle has for its aim a conciliatory 
design which is nowhere apparent in it. How strange that the matter of 
chief moment should be, not the exhortations of which the epistle is com- 
posed, but something entirely different — nowhere expressed in it, not even 
in ver. 5! How can a Paulinism be conceived of from which the very pith 
is wanting, the doctrine of justification by faith, with its characteristic 
terminology: δικαιοσύνη and δικαιοῦσθαι ἡ Precisely the absence of this doc- 
trine, and the other points which Schwegler brings forward as evidence of a 
Petrine coloring, show that the epistle cannot have been composed by one 
who belonged to the school of Paul, but must be the production of Peter, or 
of one of his disciples.t_ Lastly, opposed to Schwegler’s hypothesis as to the 
post-apostolic origin of the epistle, is the circumstance that it is hardly con- 
ceivable how a forger should have attempted to palm off on definitely formed 
churches, some ΑΨ years after his death, a letter professing to have been 
written by Peter, in which they are comforted in their present affliction ; 
and that he should have been so successful, that the fraud was detected by 
no one in the churches (comp. against Schwegler, in particular Briickner, 
Introd., § 5a).— Although the characteristic traits which Krummacher 


1 Namely, the great stress laid on καλὰ ficial services; the conception of Christians 
ἔργα, ON ἀγαθὴ ἀναστροφή, On ἀγάπη (!}, on as the true Messianic people; the introduction 
ἀγαθοποιεῖν, ON ἐλπίς, a8 a dogmatic funda- into the new covenant of the idea of the 
mental idea synonymous with πίστις ; the O. T. priesthood; the expression διασπορά in 
symbolizing of the Jewish temple and sacri- the superscription. 


198 © THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


(Evangel. Kirchenzeitung, 1829, No. 49), and after him Guericke, brings as 
proof of the genuineness, namely, “the manner of exhortation, so human and 
evangelical, so strong and gentle; the urgent directions to steadfastness of 
faith in lowliness and patience, with reference to the example and the glory 
of Christ; the urgent appeal to more watchfulness and sobriety, the higher 
their calling as believers; the repeated summonses to humility; the way in 
which the general aim is kept in view; the clearness, precision, and em- 
phatic character of the style,”— these characteristic features, although in 
themselves they do not prove Peter to have been the author of the epistle, 
still show that it breathes an apostolic spirit such as is not peculiar to post- 
apostolic writings, and that in its inward structure there is nothing to justify 
a doubt as to its genuineness. 


CHAP. I. 199 


/ 
Πέτρου ἐπιστολὴ a. 


Instead of this superscription, which A, C, δα have, B reads Πέτρου α΄; in 
some min., it is Πέτρου καθολικὴ πρώτη ἐπιστολῆ, and, in G, ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ a τοῦ 
ἁγίου καὶ πανευφήμου ἀποστόλου Πέτρου. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 6. εἰ δέον ἐστῇ. Tisch. omits ἐστί; it is wanting also in B, &, Clem., etc. ; 
Lachm. has retained it; the most of the codd. (A, C, K, L, P, ete.) read it, 
indeed; but it is more easy to explain how it was afterwards added than how it 
was left out later. —Aumn6évtec]. The reading λυπηθέντας, in L, δὲ, and several 
min., is probably only an error in copying. — Ver. 7. πολυτιμότερον, adopted by 
Griesb. already, instead of πολὺ τιμιώτερον in K, ete. Instead of τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν 
(Ree., according to K, L, P, ete.), Lachm. and Tisch. read δόξαν καὶ τιμῆν, which 
is supported by A, B, C, δὲ, many min., several vss., etc. — Ver. 8. εἰδότες]. 
Rec., after A, K, L, P, etc., Copt., Clem., Theoph., etc.; Lachm. and Tisch., 
following B, C, 8, 27, ete., Syr., Aeth., etc., read idovrec; as both readings give 
a fitting sense, and as both are attested by high authorities, it cannot with 
certainty be decided which is the original. Briickner and Hofmann are in favor 
of ἰδόντες, Schott of εἰδότες, Wiesinger uncertain. — Ver. 9. After πίστεως, Tisch. 
7, following B, several min., Clem., Aeth., etc., omits ὑμῶν, attested though it 
be by most of the authorities (A, C, K, L, P, 8, al., etc.); Tisch. 8 has retained. 
Although it may be superfluous for the meaning, yet its omission is not justified. 
— Vv. 10, 11. Instead of ἐξηρεύνησαν and ἐρευνῶντες, Tisch., following A, B, has 
adopted ἐξηραύνησαν, and, after B*, ἐραυνῶντες, --- Ver. 11. B omits Χριστοῦ, which 
must be regarded as a correction. — Ver. 12. Instead of the Received ἡμῖν dé 
(K, al., Copt., etc.), Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., have rightly adopted the 
reading ὑμὶν dé, attested by A, B, C, L, P, δὲ, al., Vulg., ete.? ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ]. 
Rec., after C, K, L, P, 8, ete., Copt., Theoph., etc. (Tisch. 8); Lachm. and 
Tisch. 7 omit ἐν, after A, B, al., Slav., Vulg., Cypr., Didym., etc. Possibly ἐν 
was interpolated on account of the usage prevalent elsewhere in the N. T. — 
Ver. 16. Tisch. 7 reads, after γέγραπται: ὅτι ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, 674; On the other hand, 
Tisch. 8 omits ὅτε before ἅγιοι, and has, after ἔσεσθε: διότι, With the preponder- 
ance of authorities, ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι is to be read; almost B alone is in favor of 
ὅτι before ἅγιοι; and, for διότι, only 8. — γένεσθε]. Rec., after K, P, ete. Lachm. 
and Tisch. rightly read ἔσεσθε after A, B, C, &, al., Vulg., Clem., Syr.; γένεσθε 


1 Buttmann has retained the Rec. ἡμῖν δέ οἷς rather than ἃ . . . ὑμῖν would be expected 
after B as he asserts. De Wette holds the after ὑμῖν; Briickner justly gives preference 
Rec. to be the original reading, it being natural to the opposing testimony, 
that the apostle should include himself, and 


ye 


200 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


is a correction after the preceding γενήθητε, In the LXX., ἔσεσθε stands. —In A, 
B*, 8, Clem., Cyr., εἰμι is wanting after ἅγιος; Lachm. and Tisch. have justly 
omitted it. — Ver. 20. Lachm. and Tisch. rightly read, instead of ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων 
(Rec., after K, L, P, etc.), ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου (A, B, C, &, al., Copt., Syr., utr., etc.). 
— Instead of ὑμᾶς, A and several min. have ἡμᾶς, which, however, must be 
considered as a correction. — Ver. 21. πιστεύοντας]. Rec., according to C, K, 
L, P, δὰ, etc., several vss., Theoph., Oec.; still the reading πιστούς might be 
preferred as the more difficult, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A, B, especially 
as πιστὸς εἰς does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; Wiesinger and Schott also 
consider πιστούς the original reading, whilst Hofmann gives the preference to 
the Rec. — Ver. 22. The Rec. has the words διὰ πνεύματος after ἀληθείας, following 
K, L, P, Theoph., ete., which Griesb. already considers suspicious; Lachm. and 
Tisch. have justly omitted them, following A, B, C, 8, many min., etc. — Lachm. 
and Tisch. read ἐκ καρδίας (A, B, Vulg.); the Rec. is ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας (C, K, L, 
P, Νὰ, al., nearly all the vss., etc.); καθαρᾶς is certainly very suspicious, since its 
addition is more easily explained than its omission; cf. 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 22; 
on the other hand, however, see Rom. vi. 17. Hofmann assumes that καθαρᾶς 
is omitted only by mistake. — Ver. 23. The words εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, following in the 
Ree. after μένοντος, which, in A, B, C, &, and other authorities, are wanting, 
were justly omitted already by Griesb. — Ver. 24, Lachm. omits ὡς before χόρτος, 
after A, several min., Syr., etc. Most of the witnesses are in favor of ὡς, the 
omission of which is to be regarded as a correction after the text of the LXX. 
— δόξα αὐτῆς, after A, B, C, K, L, P, etc., instead of the Rec., to be found almost 
only in min., Rec.: δύξα ἀνθρώπου. In &, pr. m., is to be found the reading, 7 δόξα 
αὑτοῦ. After τὸ ἄνθος, the Rec. has αὐτοῦ, retained by Tisch. 7, after C, K, L, P, 
etc., Vulg., Copt. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have omitted it after A, B, δὲ, etc.; it 
is certainly suspicious, since it may have been interpolated as an explanation; 
on the other hand, its omission may be a correction after Isa. xl. 7, LXX. 


Vy. 1,2. The superscription, while corresponding in fundamental plan 
with those of the Pauline epistles, has nevertheless a peculiar character of 
its own. —Tlerpoc]. As Paul in his epistles calls himself not by his original 
name Σαῦλος, so Peter designates himself not by his original name Liver, but 
by that given him by Christ, which “may be regarded as his apostolic, his 
official, name” (Schott); otherwise in 2 Pet.: Συμεὼν Πέτρος. ---- An addition 


‘such as διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, or the like, of which Paul oftentimes, though not 


always, makes use in the superscriptions of his epistles, was unnecessary 
for Peter. — Peter designates his readers by the words: ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις 
διασπορᾶς Πόντου, «.7.4.3; he calls the Christians to whom he writes — for that 
his epistle is addressed to Christians cannot be doubted — “ elect strangers ;” 
and withal, those who belong to the διασπορᾶ throughout Pontus, ete. ἐκλεκτοί 
the Christians are named, inasmuch as God had chosen them to be His own, 
in order that they might be made partakers of the κληρονομία (ver. 4) reserved 
for them in heaven; cf. chap. ii. 9: ὑμεῖς γένος ἐκλεκτόν. --- παρεπίδημος is he 
who dwells in a land of which he is not a native (where his home is not); 
in the LXX. it is given as the rendering of 1W\N, Gen. xxiii. 4; Ps xxxix. 
12 (in other passages 2W1N is translated by πάροικος; cf. Exod. xii. 45; Lev. 
xxii. 10, xxv. 23, 47, ete.); in the Apocrypha παρεπίδημος does not occur; in 
the N. T., besides in this passage, it is to be found in chap. ii. 11; Heb. xi 


CHAP. I. 1, 2 201 


13. —If account be taken of vv. 4, 17 (ὁ τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνος), and par- 
ticularly of chap. ii. 11, it cannot be doubted that Peter styled his readers 
παρεπίδημοι, because during their present life upon earth they, as Christians, 
were not in their true home, which is the κληρονομία. . . τετηρημένη ἐν οὐρανοῖς. 
The expression is understood in this sense by the more modern writers, in 
particular by Steiger, Briickner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt (Reuter’s Re- 
pertor., 1855, Nov.), Schott, Hofmann, ete.1_ It is incorrect to refer the 
word here to an earthly home, that is, Palestine, as is done by De Wette, 
and in like manner by Weizsiicker (in Reuter’s Repert., 1858, No. 3).? 


REMARK. —In the O. T., ΔΉ occurs in its strict signification in Gen. 
xxiii. 4; Exod. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 47 (LXX., πάροικος). In Ley. xxv. 23, 
the Israelites are called Ὁ 2) ΠῚ ὉΠ. in a peculiar connection; God says that 
such they are with Him (‘1)y, cf. Gen. xxiii. 4), in that the land wherein they 
should dwell belongs to Him. The same idea is to be found in Ps. xxxix. 12, 
where the Psalmist bases his request for hearing on this, that he is Δ and 
AWIA with God (13}}), as were his fathers; for although in vv. 5-7 the short- 
ness of human life is made specially prominent, yet there is nothing to 
show, that, in ver. 12, there is any reference to this. On the other hand, in 
1 Chron. xxix. (xxx.) 15, David, in prayer to God, speaks of himself and his 
people as 0°93 and DAWN, because they have no abiding rest on earth (1272) ΝΞ 
Mp? PS yn); here it is not the preposition Vay, but 99, which is 
used. In the passage Ps. exix. 19, the relation in which the Psalmist speaks 
of himself as a stranger is not expressed ΚΝ, ver. 54; he calls his earthly life 
Δ, as Jacob in Gen. xlvii. 9, which points evidently enough to the circum- 
stance that the Israelites were not without the consciousness that their real home 
lay beyond this earthly life; cf. on this, Heb. xi. 13; 14, and Delitzsch in loc. 


Whilst the expression ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις ---- wherein not ἐκλεκτοὶς (Hof- 
mann) but παρεπιδῆμοις is the substantival idea —is applicable to all Chris- 
tians, the following words: διασπορᾶς Πόντου, x.7.4., specify those Christians to 
whom the epistle is addressed (cf. the superscriptions of the Pauline epistles). 
— διασπορά, strictly an abstract idea, denotes, according to Jewish usage: 
“JTsrael living scattered among the heathen,” —that is, it is a complex of 
concrete ideas, 2 Macc. i. 27; John vii. 35; cf. Meyer in loc. ; Winer, Bibl. 


1 It is inexact to interpret παρεπίδημοι sim- 
ply by “ pilgrims of earth ;”’ Steinmeyer, on 
the other hand (Disquisitio in Ep. Petr. I. 
prooemium), rightly observes: **Quum man- 
sio in terra sempiterna permittatur nemini, in 
universos omnes vox quadaret, nec in eos solos, 
qui per evangelium vocati sunt;” but when 
Steinmeyer adds: “ Quare censemur, raped, 
esti significare -. . 1n mundo viventes, cujus 
esse desierint, cui ipsi sint perosi,” he thus 
gives ap improper application to the word, the 
more so that the conception κόσμος, in an 
ethical sense, is foreign to the Epistle of Peter. 
Weiss weakens the idea by saying: ** The 
Christian isin so far a stranger on the earth 


as he is aware of the inheritance reserved for 
him in heayen; this knowledge the unbeliever 
cannot have, and accordingly he cannot feel 
himself a stranger on earth.’’ It is not the 
knowing and feeling, but the really being, 
which is of consequence. 

2 It is still more erroneous to suppose, as 
Reuss does (Gesch. der h. Schriften N. T., 
§ 147, note), that the readers are here termed 
παρεπίδ., ** because they are looked upon as 
0°) proselytes, i.e., Israelites according to 
faith, not according to the form of worship.” 
This view, however, is opposed to the usus 
loquendi, since παρεπίδημοι NOWwhere denotes 
proselytes. 


202 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

Realwérterb., see under “ Zerstreuung.”1 The question is now: Is the word 
to be taken as applying only to the Jewish nation? From of old the ques- 
tion has, by many interpreters, been answered in the affirmative (Didymus, 
Oecumenius, Eusebius, Calvin, Beza, De Wette, Weiss, etc.), and therefrom 
the conclusion has been drawn that the readers of the epistle were Jewish 
Christians.2, But the character of the epistle is opposed to this view (cf. 
Introd., § 3). Since the Apostle Peter regarded Christians as the true Israel, 
of which the Israel of the O. T. was only the type (ii. 9), there is nothing to 
prevent the expression being applied, as many interpreters hold,’ to the Chris- 
tians, and withal to those who dwelt outside of Canaan. No doubt this land 
had not for the N. T. Church the same significance which it possessed for 
that of the O. T., still it was the scene of Christ’s labors, and in Jerusalem 
was the mother church of all Christendom.* Some interpreters, like Aretius, 
Schott, Hofmann, leave entirely out of view the local reference of the word, 
and take it as applying to the whole of Christendom ecclesia dispersa in toto 
orbe, in so far as the latter represents “a concrete corporeal centre around 
which the members of the church were locally united,” and “has its point 
of union in that Christ who is seated at the right hand of God” (Schott). 
Against this, however, it must be urged that Peter, if he had wished the 
word διασπορά to have been understood in a sense so entirely different from 
the established usage, would in some way or other have indicated this. — It 
is entirely erroneous to suppose ® that in the expression used by Peter the 
readers are designated as heathen Christians, or even’ as aforetime proselytes. 
The one correct interpretation is, that in the superscription those readers 
only are described as “ Christians, who constituted the people of God living, 
scattered throughout the regions mentioned, who, in consequence of their 
election, had become strangers in the world, but who had their inheritance 
and home in heaven, whither they were journeying” (Wiesinger). The 
reason why Peter employed this term with reference to his readers lies in 
the design of the epistle; he speaks of them as ἐκλεκτοί, in order that in their 
present condition of suffering he might assure them of their state of grace 


1 The LXX. translate mJ (as a collective 
noun), Deut. xxx. 4, Neh. i. 9, by διασπορά, 
and as inexactly and even incorrectly male 
Jer.xxxiv.17; TID, Jer-xv.75 IW AVI, 
Isa. xlix. 6. ; i : 

2 Taken in this way, the genit. διασπορᾶς 
must be interpreted as genit. partit., thus: the 
members of the διασπορά who have become 
Christians (ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι). Weiszaicker 
1s altogether mistaken (Reuter’s Repert., 1858, 
No. 3) in his opinion that the reference is to 


κατὰ πνεῦμα, that he looks upon the converted 
heathen as the branches ingrafted into Israel, 
that he was ever anxious to keep up the con- 
nection between the heathen Christian churches 
and the mother church in Jerusalem, and that 
he distinctly terms the Church triumphant 
ἡ ἄνω “Ἱερουσαλήμ. 

5 Schott, however, grants that ‘‘ Peter con- 
siders Jerusalem and the mother church in 
Jerusalem typically as the ideal centre for all 
believers under the New Covenant.” 


**the Christians who, in as far as they dwell 
among the dispersed Jewish communities, are 
members of the Diaspora.” 

8 Briickner, Wiesinger, Wieseler too; Rett- 
berg in Eyrsch-Gruber, see under ‘ Petrus,” 
and others. 

4 It is worthy of note that Paul also con- 
siders the Christian Church to be the Israel 


6 With Augustine (Contra Faustum, xxii. 
89), Procopius (Jn Jes., xv. 20), Cassiodorus 
(De instit. div. litt., ii. p. 516), Luther, Gual- 
ther, and others, and, among more recent 
authors, Steiger. 

7 With Credner (Zinl., p. 638), Neudecker 
(Zinl., p. 677). 


CHAP. I. 1, 2 203 


as παρεπίδημοι, that they might know that they belonged to the home of 
believers in heaven. But it is at least open to doubt whether in διασπορὰς 
there is any reference to the present want of direct union around Christ 
(Schott). — Πόντου, Γαλατίας, x.7.4. The provinces of Asia Minor are named 
chiefly in a westerly direction, Galatia westward from Pontus, then the 
enumeration continues with Cappadocia lying south from Galatia, that is to 
say, in the east, and goes from thence westward towards Asia, after which 
Bithynia is mentioned, the eastern boundary of the northern part of Asia 
Minor. So that Bengel is not so far wrong (as opposed to Wiesinger) when 
he says: Quinque provinicas nominat eo ordine, quo occurrebant scribenti ex 
oriente. If in Asia, besides Caria, Lydia, and Mysia, Phrygia also (Ptolem., 
vy. 2) be included, and in Galatia the lands of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and a part 
of Lycaonia, — which, however, is improbable, —the provinces mentioned 
by Peter will embrace almost the whole of Asia Minor.—JIn the N. T. 
there is no mention of the founding of the Christian churches in Pontus, 
Cappadocia, and Bithynia. — Ver. 2. κατὰ πρόγνωσιν, x.7.A. The three ad- 
juncts, beginning with different prepositions, are not to be taken with 
ἀπύστολος, as Cyrillus (De recta fide), Oecumen., Kahnis (Lehre v. Abendm., 
p- 65), and others think, but with ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις, pointing out as they 
do the origin, the means, and the end of the condition in which the readers 
as ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι Were. It is further incorrect to limit, as is prevalently 
done, their reference simply to the term ἐκλεκτοῖς, and to find in them a more 
particular definition of the method of the divine election. Steinmeyer, in 
violation of the grammatical construction, gives a different reference to each 
of the three adjuncts joining κατὰ πρόγν. with ἐκλεκτοῖς, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ With παρεπι- 
δήμοις, and εἰς ὑπακ. With ἁγιασμῷ. But inasmuch as the ideas ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδῆ- 
uote Stand in closest connection, the two prepositions κατά and ἐν must apply 
equally to them. κατά states that the ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι are such in virtue of 
the πρόγνωσις Θεοῦ; κατά denotes “the origin, and gives the pattern according 
to which” (so, too, Wiesinger). πρόγνωσις is translated generally by the 
commentators as predestination ;? this is no doubt inexact, still it must be 
observed that in the N. T. πρόγνωσις stands always in such a connection as 
to show that it expresses an idea akin to that of predestination, but without 
the idea of knowing or of taking cognizance being lost. It is the perceiving 
of God by means of which the object is determined, as that which He per- 
ceives it to be. Cf. Meyer on Rom. viii. 29: “It is God’s being aware in 
His plan, in virtue of which, before the subjects are destined by Him to sal- 


1 Hofmann supports this application as 
against that to παρεπιδήμοις, because the 
state of being a stranger, even though taken 
spiritually, is not a condition to which the 
prepositional determinations are suited.”? Hof- 
mann does not state the ground of this asser- 
tion; as the idea of being a stranger is identical 
with that of being a Christian, these are very 
well adapted to ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδημοις. The 
mere circumstance that the question here is 
not one of a nearer definition of election, but 


of the condition in which the readers were, is 
opposed to a connection with ἐκλεκτοῖς, Cf. 
1 Cor. i, 1, where διὰ θελήματος stands con- 
nected with κλητὸς ἀπόστολος “Inc. Xp., and 
not with κλητός ; see 2 Cor. i. 1. 

2 Lyranus, praedestinatio; Erasmus, prae- 
finitio; Beza, antegressum decretum s. pro- 
positum Dei; Luther, the foreseeing of God; 
Gerhard, πρόθεσις juxta quam facta est elec. 
tio; de Wette, βουλή or mpoopicpos. 


204 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

vation, He knows who are to be so destined by Him.” It is incorrect, there- 
fore, to understand the word as denoting simply foreknowledge; this leads 
to a Pelagianizing interpretation, and is met. by Augustine’s phrase: eligen- 
dos facit Deus, non invenit. Estius translates πρόγνωσις at once by praedilectio: 
other interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, would include the idea of 
love, at least, in that of foreknowledge; but although it must be granted 
that the πρόγνωσις of God here spoken of cannot be conceived of without His 
love, it must not be overlooked that the idea of love is not made prominent.? 
Hofmann says: -“ πρόγνωσις is — precognition ; here, therefore, a work of God 
the Father, which consists in this, that He makes beforehand those whom 
He has chosen, objects of a knowledge, as the akin and homogeneous are 
known, that is, of an approving knowledge.” — πατρός is added to Θεοῦ; the 
apostle has already in his mind the following πνεύματος and ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, in 
order thereby to emphasize more definitely the threefold basis of election. 
Bengel: Mysterium Trinitatis et oeconomia salulis nostrae innuitur hoc versu. — 
ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος. It seems simplest and most natural to interpret, with 
Luther and most others, “through the sanctifying of the Spirit,” —that is, 
taking ἁγιασμός actively, and ἐν as denoting the instrumentality. The only 
diffiulty in the way is, that ἁγιασμός, a word foreign to classical Greek, and 
occurring but seldom in the Apocrypha, has constantly the neutral signifi- 
cation, “sanctification ;”® cf. Meyer on Rom. vi. 19. Now, since the word, 
as far as the form is concerned, admits of both meanings,’ it is certainly 
permissible to assume that here — deviating from the general usus loquendi 


—it may have an active signification, as perhaps also in 2 Thess. ii. 19. If 


1 The word has not this signification in the 
N. T.; it has it, however, in the Book of 
Judith, ix. 6 and xi. 19. — The verb προγιγνώσ- 
«ev has the meaning of simple foreknowledge 
in Acts xxvi. 5 and 2 Pet. iii. 17 (so, too, Book 
of Wisd. vi. 13, viii. 8, xviii. 6); the sense is 
different in Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2, and 1 Pet. 
i. 20. 

2 Schott’s assertion, that “γιγνώσκειν is 
always a cognizance of this kind, since he who 
is cognizant gives himself up in his inmost 
nature to the object in question, so as again to 
take it up into his being and to appropriate it 
to himself,” — further, that ‘‘the perceiving 
of God creates its own objects, and conse- 
quently is a mpoy:yvwoxery,” and that accord- 
ingly neither death nor sin can be the objects 
of God’s foreknowledge, — contradicts itself 
by the clearest statements of Scripture: cf. 
Deut. ix. 24, xxxi. 27, Matt. xxii. 18; Luke 
xvi. 15; John y. 42; 1 Cor. iii. 20, ete. 

2 Cf. Rom. vi. 19, where it is contrasted 
with ἀνομία; 1 Cor. i. 30, where it is connected 
with δικαιοσύνη, 1 Tim. ii. 15 with ἀγάπη, and 
1 Thess. iv. 4 with τιμή; 1 Thess. iv. 7, where 
it stands in antithesis to ἀκαθαρσία; and Heb. 
xli. 14, where, like εἰρήνην (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 11: 
διωκε δικαιοσύνην), it depends on διώκετε; in 
1 Thess. iv. 3 also it has the meaning referred 


to. If it be here taken in an active sense, and 
ὑμῶν be the objective genitive, the subject is 
wanting; but if ὑμῶν be the subjective geni- 
tive, then it is the object which is wanting. 
Liinemann’s interpretation accordingly : ‘* that 
you sanctify yourselves,” is unwarranted. 
ἁγιασμός can only be artificially interpreted by 
*“‘sanctifying” in the passages quoted. A 
striking example of this is Hofmann’s inter- 
pretation of 1 Thess. iv. 4. Only in 2 Thess. 
ii, 18, where the expression, as here, is: ἐν 
ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος, does the active meaning 
seem to correspond better than the neuter with 
the thought. There is no foundation whatever 
for the opinion of Cremer, cf. s.v., that — 
whilst in the Apoerypha the word never has 
an active signification, but is either ‘‘sanc- 
tuary”’ (thus also in the LXX. Ezek. xlv. 4 
and Amos ii. 11) or “sanctity ’’—it is in the 
N. T. for the most part ‘‘sanctifying.”’— 
Schott very justly calls in question the active 
signification of the word; but when, not con- 
tent with the rendering ‘‘ sanctification,” he 
interprets: “the condition of holiness being 
increasingly realized,’’ he confuses the concep- 
tion by references which are simply imported. 

4 Cf. Buttmann, Aus/iihrl. griech. Sprachl. 
§ 119, 20. 


CHAP. I. 1, 2. 205 
the preposition ἐν be taken as equal to “through,” there results an appro- 
priate progression of thought from origin (κατά) to means (ἐν), and further 
to end (εἰς). If, however, the usage establish a hard and fast rule, the inter- 
pretation must be: “the holiness wrought by the (Holy) Spirit,” so that the 
genitive as gen. auct. has a signification similar to that in the expression 
δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ;1 in this interpretation ἐν may equally have an instrumental 
force. No doubt, many interpreters deny that ἐν can here be equal to διά, 
since the election is not accomplished by means of the Holy Spirit. But 
this ground gives way if the three nearer definitions refer not to the election, 
—as a divine activity,—and so not to the ἐκλεκτοὶς alone, but to the state 
into which the readers had been introduced by the choice of God, that is, to 
the ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις. It is incorrect to attribute to ἐν here a final signifi- 
cation; Beza: ad sanctificationem; De Wette: εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ ; the con- 
ception of purpose begins only with the subsequent cic. — The explanation, 
that ἐν dy. xv. points out the sphere (or the limitations) within which the 
readers are é«A. tapex. (formerly supported in this commentary), is wanting 
in the necessary clearness of thought. — εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Xp. The third adjunct to ἐκλ. rapenid. giving the end towards which this 
condition is directed. The preposition εἰς is not to be connected with ἁγιασμός 
(De Wette, Steinmeyer); for although such a construction be grammatically 
possible, the reference to the Trinity goes to show that these words must 
be taken as a third adjunct, co-ordinate with the two preceding clauses. 
Besides, if there were two parts only, the conjunction καί would hardly be 
wanting. ὑπακοῇ is to be construed neither with ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, whether taken 
as, a subjective genitive (Beza: designatur nostrae sanctificationis subjectum, 
nempe Christus Jesus qui patri fuit obediens ad mortem, where εἰς is arbitrarily 
rendered by διά), nor, with Hofmann and Schott, as an objective genitive: 
“ obedience towards Christ” (for then this genitive would stand in a relation 
other than to aiuaroc),? nor with aivaruc. ὑπακοῇ must be taken here abso- 
lutely, as in ver. 14; cf. Rom. vi. 16. With regard to the meaning of 
ὑπακοῆ, many interpreters understand by it faith in Christ; so Luther, Ger- 
hard, Vorstius, Heidegger, Bengel, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc.: others, on 
the contrary, take it to signify “moral obedience;” so Pott, De Wette, 
Schott, etc. Many of the former, however, insist that by it a faith is meant 
“which of itself includes a conduct corresponding to it”? (Hofmann), whilst 
by the latter it is emphasized that that moral obedience is meant which 


1 The idea of holiness is here by no means 
inappropriate, since the readers would not be 


tos, might at the same time be objective geni- 
tive to ὑπακοή. In opposition to this, we 


ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπιδημοι if they had not become 
ἅγιοι through the Holy Spirit. It is this ἅγιον 
εἶναι which is here expressed by ἁγιασμός. 
Also .in 2 Thess. ii. 13, there is no urgent 
reason for departing from this signification of 
the word. Hofmann erroneously appeals to 
2 Mace. xiv. 36; cf. Cremer, 3. Ὁ. 

2 Hofmann thinks that since ῥαντισμὸς aipa- 
τος forms one conception, and ὑπακοὴ can be 
accompanied by an objective genitive, Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, being the subjective genitive to αἷμα- 


observe (1) that it is self-contradictory to say 
that pav7. αἵματος forms one conception, and 
that Ἰησοῦ Xp. is dependent on αἵματος ; and 
(2) that it is grammatically inadmissible to 
take the same genitive as being at once sub- 
jective and objective genitive.— This much 
only is correct, that the nearer definition, 
which must be supplied to ὑπακοή, has, in 
sense, to be borrowed from the subsequent 
genitive ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp, 


206 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
springs from faith, so that both interpretations are substantially in accord. 
It may then be said that ὑπακοῇ is the life of man conformed in faith and 
walk to the will of the Lord, which the ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι as such must 
realize; so that there is no reason why the idea should be limited towards 
the one side or the other; cf. 1 John iii. 23. The second particular: καὶ 
ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος ᾿Ιησυῦ Χριστοῦ, is closely linked on to ὑπακοῆ. Some commen- 
tators have held that the O. T. type on which this expression is based was 
the paschal lamb.!_ Others think that the ceremonial of the great day of 
atonement is meant.2. Wrongly, however; for although in both cases blood 
was employed, neither the blood of the paschal lamb nor that of the offering 
of atonement was used to sprinkle the people. With the former the posts 
were tinged; with the latter the sacred vessels were sprinkled. Steinmeyer 
is wrong in tracing the expression to the sprinkling with water (Lev. xix.) 
of him who had been defiled through contact with a corpse, from the fact 
that the LXX. have ῥαντισμός only in this passage. For, apart from the arti- 
’ ficialness of the explanation which Steinmeyer 3 thus feels himself compelled 
to adopt, the reference to the water of sprinkling is inapt, since mention is 
made here of a sprinkling of blood, and not of water. A sprinkling of the 
people with blood took place only on the occasion of the sacrifice of the cove- 
nant. The O. T. type on which the expression is founded is no other than 
the making of the covenant related in Exod. xxiv. 8, to which even Gerhard 
had made reference, and as, in more recent times, has been acknowledged : 
by Briickner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. This is clear from Heb. ix. 19 
(λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα τῶν μόσχων... πάντα τὸν λαὸν ἐῤῥάντισε) and xii. 24, where αἰμα 
ῥαντισμοῦ, i.e., “the blood by means of the sprinkling of which the ratifica- 
tion of the covenant took place,” is connected with the immediately preced- 
ing καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτης. Accordingly, by ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος Igo. Xp. is to be 
understood the ratification of the covenant relation grounded on the death 
of Christ, with those thereto ordained; the reference here, however, being 
not to the commencement, but to the continuance of that relation. For by 


1 Thus Beda: ‘“aspersi sanguine Christi 
potestatem Satanae vitant, sicut Israel per 
agui sanguinem Aegypti dominatum declina- 
vit;’’ Aretius, etc. 

2 Thus Pott, 
etc. 

8 Since Steinmeyer, from the fact that the 
LXX. translate the Hebrew WW ”D (which is 
not, in his view, equal to *‘ water of purifica- 
tion,” but to ** water of impurity”) by ὕδωρ 
ῥαντισμοῦ, concludes that ῥαντισμός does not 
simply mean aspersio, but ea aspersio, cujus 
ratio, causa, effectus verbis mW) ” descripta 
sunt, —that is, since that water was tanquam 
mortis instar, quum’ in ipsius mortis commu- 
nionem ita redigeret immundos, ut reduceren- 
tur inde in munditiem vitae, ejusmodi aspersio 
quae in naturam sparsae aquae trahit, atque 
virtute ipsius sparsos penitus imbuit, he ex- 
plains ῥαντισμ. αἵμ. I, Xp. as a sprinkling with 


Augusti, Steiger, Usteri, 


the blood of Christ, qua in mortis salvatoris 
nostri communionem trahamur. 

4 When Wiesinger remarks: ‘* But in Heb. 
xi. 22, ἐῤῥαντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδ. 
πονηρᾶς is based on the typical sacrifice of the 
great day of atonement, although ἐῤῥαντισμένοι 


_ is transferred here to persons, and ἀπό points 


to a cleansing and freeing from the conscious- 
ness of guilt,”? we cannot in this agree with 
him; nor do either Liinemann or Delitzsch 
see here any reference to the great sacrifice of 
atonement. The former explains the expres- 
sion ‘‘on the analogy of the sprinkling with 
blood by which the first Levitical priests were 
consecrated; while the latter quotes by way 
of explanation the passage Heb. xii. 24, where 
he terms the αἷμα ῥαντισμοῦ the antitype of the 
blood with which Moses sprinkled the people 
at the institution and consecration of the cove- 
nant. 


* CHAP. I. 312 207 


this expression the apostle does not intend to remind his readers of the end 
God had in view in their election, but to set before them what the purpose 
of their election is, which, like the ὑπακοῇ, should therefore be realized in 
them as the elect strangers. They are then ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι, in order that 
they may constantly render obedience to Christ, and in Him constantly pos- 
sess the forgiveness of sins.1— The καὶ standing between ὑπακοῆν and ῥαντισμόν 
is taken by Steinmeyer as an explicative; he explains: “in obedientiam, atque 
in eam praesertim, ut aspergamini sanguine Christi h. 6. ut vos in mortis Jesu 
Christi communionem trahi patiamini.” Incorrectly: “inasmuch as the active 
idea of obedience can never be explained by the passive being sprinkled "ἢ 
(Wiesinger); and the introduction of the idea pati is arbitrary. —It is 
further to be observed that the readers are, by the expression last used: 
ῥαντ. αἵματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, here for the first time characterized directly as 
Christians, all the previous designations having been equally applicable to 
the children of Israel; a circumstance which shows clearly enough that Peter 
regards the Christian Church as the true Israel, and that without making 
it in any way dependent on national connection. — As regards the lexicol- 
ogy, it must be remarked that in classical Greek ῥαντισμός never occurs, and 
ῥαντίζειν Only in later writers: the usual word is ῥαίνειν, e.g., Euripides, [phig. 
in Aul., 1589: ἧς αἵματι βωμὸν paiver’ ἄρδην τῆς Θεοῦ; in the LXX. both verbal 
forms: ῥαντισμός, only in Num. xix., in a somewhat inexact translation, 
however. — χάρις ὑμὶν καὶ εἰρηνη πληθυνθείη. The distinction between ydpuc and 
εἰρήνη is thus drawn by Gerhard: “paz a gratia distinguitur tanquam FRUCTUS 
et EFFECTUS a sua CAUSA.” In harmony with this, χάρις is regarded by the 
interpreters for the most part as “the subjective in God” (Meyer on Rom. 
i. 7); but Paul’s use of ἀπό and the subsequent πληθυνθείη show that by χάρις 
in forms of greeting, is to be understood the gifts which flow from it (the 
manifestation of grace). εἰρήνη specifies this gift more closely according to 
its nature (see on 1 Tim. i. 2).52 πληθυνθείη). Luther: “ye have peace and 
grace, but not yet to the full;” on the salutation form in the N. T., besides 
here only in 2 Pet. i. 2 and Jude 2; in O. T. in Dan. iii. 31, LXX.: εἰρήνη 
ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη.8 

Vv. 3-12. Praise to God for the grace of which the Christians had been 
made the partakers. The prominence which the apostle gives to ἀναγεννᾷν 
εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν, as also his designation of them as ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι. is occa- 
sioned by the present state of suffering in which his readers were, and above 
which he is desirous of raising them. 


1 Hofmann is accordingly wrong in main- 
taining that “ what is here meant has taken 
place once for all for the readers, and is not 
continually to be done.’”? Nor does this alto- 
gether accord with his own interpretation, 
when he says, ‘“‘the readers are chosen to 
become obedient to Christ, and partakers of 
His propitiation for sin.’”” The Christian, on 
being received into communion with Christ, has 
been sprinkled with His blood, but still he 
requires a continual cleansing, and this he re- 
ceives, if he walk in the light; cf. 1 John i. 7. 


2 When Schott, in order to preserve the 
objectiveness of εἰρήνη, erroneously under- 
stands it to mean ‘‘ the state of matters which 
to those who are in it occasions inwardly no 
want or unrest, and externally no harm or dis- 
turbance,” it must be urged in opposition that 
the inwardness of a possession does not in any 
way affect its objectiveness, 

8 Cf. Schoettgen: Horae Hebr. et Talm., on 
this passage. 


. 


208 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

Ver. 3. εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρ. Hu. "1. Χριστοῦ. The same formula 
oceurs in 2 Cor. 1. 8; Eph. i. 8. --- εὐλογητός, not: “worthy of praise,” but: 
“praised;” in the LXX. the translation of 373; in the N. T. the word 
εὐλογητός used only with reference to God. εἴη and not ἐστίν is probably to 
be supplied, as is done by most commentators, cf. Meyer on Eph. 1. 1; 
Winer, p. 545 (E.. T., 586) (Schott; Buttm., p. 120 [E. T., 137]), at least 
from the fact that in the doxologies introduced by means of relatives, ἐστίν 
is to be found (cf. Rom. i. 25; also 1 Pet. iv. 11), it cannot be concluded 
that the indicative is to be supplied in an ascription of praise quite differ- 
ently constructed, cf. LXX. Jobi.21. The adjunct καὶ πατὴρ, x.7.2., to ὁ Θεός 
is explainable as a natural expression of the Christian consciousness. It is 
possible “that the whole formula of doxology has its origin in the liturgical 
usage, so to speak, in the primitive Christian Church” (Weiss, p. 401). — 
ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννῆσας ἡμᾶς. The participial clause states the 
reason why God is to be praised. πολύ gives prominence to the riches of 
the divine mercy, Eph. ii. 4: πλούσιος ὧν ἐν ἐλέει. κατά is used here in the same 
sense as in ver. 2. ἀναγεννῆσας has its nearer definition in the subsequent 
εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν. De Wette joins these intimately connected ideas in a some- 
what too loose way, when he thus interprets: “who hath awakened us to 
repentance and faith, and thereby at the same time toa hope.” Similarly 
Wiesinger, who takes ἀναγεννῆσας as a self-contained idea, and connects εἰς 
ἐλπίδα with it, in this sense, “that in the idea of regeneration this particular 
determination of it is brought into prominence, that it is a new birth to 
living hope, i.e., as born again we have attained unto a lively hope;” thus 
Schott. This view, however, refutes itself, because it necessitates unjustifi- 
able supplements. More in harmony with the expression is Brickner’s 
interpretation, according to which εἰς denotes the aim of the new birth 
(“the hope is conceived of as the ‘aim of him by whom the readers have 
been begotten again;” thus Morus, already: Deus nos in melius mutavit, cur? 
ut sperare possimus). But if the attainment of σωτηρία be conceived as the 
aim and end of the new birth, the hopes directed to it cannot be so, all 
the less that this hope forms an essential element of the new life itself. The 
verb ὀναγεννᾷν is here taken not as an absolute, but as a relative, idea, its 
supplement lying in εἰς ἐλπ. ¢. (so also Steinmeyer, Weiss, Hofmann). The 
ἐλπὶς ζῶσα is then to be thought of as the life into which the mercy of God 
has raised or begotten the believer from the death of hopelessness (Eph. 
ii. 12: ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ... ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες) ; the connection is 
the same as in Gal. iv. 24, where the simple γεννᾷν is also construed with 
eic.1 This view is justified, not only by the close connection of εἰς with the 
idea, ἀναγεννᾷν, but also by the corresponding adj. ζῶσαν. In this there is no 


1 Against this interpretation Schott urges: 
that ἀναγεννᾷν does not mean ‘to awaken,” 
that ‘‘a death of despair’? is not alluded to, 
that neither ἐλπίς nor ἐλπὶς ζῶσα denotes ‘a 
life of hope.”” These reasons are insignificant, 
for (1) the expression ‘‘awakened” is not 
employed in order to give the full meaning of 
avayevvav; (2) even on the opposite interpre- 


tation their former condition may be consid- 
ered as a hopeless one, and can undoubtedly 
be regarded as a death; and (3) it cannot be 
denied that hope is life. In opposition to 
Schott’s assertion, that ἀναγεννᾷν is every- 
where a self-contained idea, it is to be noted 
that the word occurs in the N. T. only here 
and in ver. 23. 


CHAP. I. 4. 209 


weakening of the idea ἀναγεννᾷν (in opposition to Wiesinger), for ἐλπίς need 
not be conceived as representing one single side of the Christian life, but 
under it may be understood the whole Christian life in its relation to the 
future σωτηρία. It is incorrect to take ἐλπίς here in the objective sense, as: 
object of hope; Aretius: res, quae spei subjectae sunt, ἢ. 6. vita aeterna; 
Bengel: haereditas coclestis; so also Hottinger, Hensler, etc. It is used 
rather in the subjective sense to denote the inward condition of life. — The 
expression ζῶσα has been variously translated by the commentators; thus 
Beza explains it as: perennis; Aretius: solida: Piscator: vivifica; Gualther: 
spes viva certitudinem salutis significat; Heidegger: ζῶσα: quia et fructus vitae 
edit, et spes vitae est et permanet; quia non languida, infirma est, sed παῤῥησίαν 
et πεποίθησιν habet et perpetua simul semperque exhilarans est, neque unquam 
intermoritur, sed semper renovatur et refocillatur; in the first edition of 
this commentary; “the hope of the Christian is pervaded by life, carry- 
ing with it in undying power the certainty of fulfilment (Rom. v. 5), 
and making the heart joyful and happy;” it “has life in itself, and gives 
life, and at the same time has life as its object” (De Wette). Taken 
strictly, ζῶσα characterizes the hope as one which has life in itself, and is 
therefore operative. All else may as a matter of fact be connected with it, 
but is not contained in the word itself (Weiss, p. 92); more especially, too, 
the idea that it has the certainty of its own realization (Hofmann) ; ef. i. 
23: λόγος ζῶν; Ii. 4,5: λίθος Gov. Gerhard incorrectly interprets ἐλπίς by fides, 
sive fiducialis meriti Christi apprehensio quae est regenerationis nostrae causa 
formalis. For apart from the fact that Peter is not here speaking of regen- 
eration at all, ἐλπίς and πίστις are in themselves separate ideas, which cannot 
be arbitrarily substituted for one another. It is erroneous also, with Luther, 
Calvin, and others, to resolve ἐλπὶς ζῶσα into ἐλπὶς ζωῆς ; ζῶσα denotes not the 
end, but the nature of the hope. — δι’ ἀναστάσεως ’Ino. Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν 15 not 
to be joined with ζῶσαν, but with ἀναγεννῆσας, More nearly defined by εἰς... 
ζῶσαν 3 for ζῶσαν does not define a particular kind of hope, but only gives 
special prominence to an element already contained in the idea ἐλπίς. The 
resurrection of Christ is the means by which God has begotten us again to 
the living hope. It is the fact which forms the living ground of Christian 
hope. Wiesinger joins δ dvacr, somewhat too loosely with dvay., explaining 
as he does: “He hath begotten us again, and thus in virtue of the 1 a 
tion of Jesus Christ hath aided us to living hope.” — As ζῶσαν corresponds to 
the term ἀναγεννήσας, so does ἀνάστασις in the most exact manner to both 
of these ideas. By the resurrection of Christ the believer also is risen to 
life. It must be remarked, the prepositions κατά, ἐν, εἰς, ver. 2, are used 
to correspond with κατά, εἰς, διά ; cf. ver. 5, the use of the prepositions: ἐν, 
διά, εἰς. 

Ver. 4. εἰς κληρονομίαν, co-ordinate with the conception ἐλπίδα ; it is never- 


1 Oecum., Luth., Bengel, Lorinus, Steiger, apply it, in accordance with their interpreta- 
De Wette, Hofmann. tion of ἀναγ. eis ἐλπίδα, δι᾽ ἀναστασεως, both 

2 Calvin, Gerhard, Knapp, Weiss, p. 299, to regeneration and the hope therewith con- 
Schott, Briickner. Schott and Brickner, while nected, which, however, they term ‘‘a single 
accepting the construction above indicated, homogeneous fact.” 


210 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
theless not dependent on it, but on ἀναγεννῆσας, although it denotes the 
objective blessing to which the ἐλπίς has regard. It is added by way of 
apposition, in order to describe more nearly the substance of the hope with 
respect to its aim. — κληρονομία means, no doubt, in the O. and N. T. (Matt. 
xxi. 38; Luke xii. 13) sometimes inheritance; but more frequently it has 
the signification of possession. In the O. T. it often serves to denote the 
land of Canaan and its separate parts, promised and apportioned to the peo- 
ple of Israel (Deut. xii. 9; Lam. v. 2; Josh. xiii. 14, and other passages): 
ἡ γῆ, ἣν κύριος 6 Θεός σου δίδωσι σοι ἐν κλήρῳ, Deut. xxiv. 2, or ἣν. .. δίδωσί σοι 
κληρονομῆσαι. In the N. T., and so here also, by the term is to be under- 
stood the completed βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ with all its possessions, as the antitype 
of the land of Canaan (cf. in particular, Heb. ix. 15). As this use of the 
word is not based on the signification “inheritance,” it cannot be main- 
tained, with Wiesinger (Schott agreeing with him), that κληρονομία stands 
here with reference to ἀναγεννῆσας, “to designate that of which the Chris- 
tians as children of God have expectations.”! The following words: ἄφθαρτον 
kai ἀμίαντον Kai ἀμάραντον, state the gloriousness of the κληρονομία.2 ἄφθαρτος 
(cf. chap. ili. 4), opposite of φθαρτός (ver. 18 equal to ἀπολλύμενος, ver. 7), cf. 
ver. 23; Rom. i. 23; 1 Cor. ix. 25, xv. 53, 54; “not subject to the φθορά." 
ἀμίαντος (Jas. 1. 27; Heb. vii. 26), “undefiled, undefilable.” ἁμάραντος az. 
dey. (ἀμαράντινος is similar, chap. v. 4), “unfading;” in the last expression 
prominence is given to the imperishable beauty of the κληρονομία. Steinmeyer’s 
opinion is incorrect, that ἀμίαντος has nearly the same meaning as πολύτιμος 
and τίμιος, ver. 19.—It is not to be assumed that Peter alludes to the char- 
acter “of the earthly κληρονομία (Weiss, p. 74) of the people of Israel,” 
especially as there is nothing in the expressions ἀμάραντος and ἄφθαρτος which 
can without artificial straining admit of such a reference.?— τετηρημένην ἐν 
οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς]. The apostle, having up to this time spoken generally, makes 
a transition, and addresses his readers directly: ἀναγενν, ἡμᾶς; he thereby 
assures them that that κληρονομία is a possession intended and reserved for 
them. For the conception here expressed, cf. especially Col. i. 5, and 
Meyer in loc. The perf. τετηρημένην (Luth., inexactly: “which is kept’’) 
stands here with reference to the nearness of the time when their κληρονομία 
will be allotted to believers; ver. 5: ἑτοίμην dmoxadvgdjva.* 

Ver. 5. As the basis of the thought: terqpquévnv . . . εἰς ὑμᾶς, the apostle 
subjoins to ὑμᾶς the additional τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει ppovpovuévovce . . . εἰς σωτηρίαν, by 


1 No doubt Rom. viii. 17 might be appealed 
to in support of this interpretation, yet it 
would be unwarrantable to maintain that the 
idea there expressed belongs also to Peter. It 
must also be observed that eyen Paul, where 
he makes use of the term κληρονομία, never 
alludes to that idea, —a circumstance which 
has its reason in the current usage of the word. 

2 Calvin, inaccurately: ‘‘tria epitheta quae 
sequuntur ad gratiae Dei amplificationem 
posita sunt.” 

3 In ἀμίαντος, Weiss sees an allusion to the 
pollution of Judxa by the people of Israel 


itself or its enemies (Jer. ii. 7; Lev. xviii. 28; 
Num. xxxv. 34; Ezek. xxxvi. 17; Ps. Ixxix. 1, 
where the LXX. has μιαίνειν) ; and in ἀμάραν- 
tos to the scorching of the country by the 
simoom. Weis thinks that ἄφθαρτος may 
allude to the φθείρειν τὴν γῆν, Isa. xxiv. 3; 
still he himself does not consider this proba- 
ble. 

4 Hofmann, in disputing this by saying that 
the perf. partic. 1s not erplained by the near- 
ness of the time when the believers will be in 
possession of the inheritance, calls in question 
an assertion which is nowhere here made, 


CHAP. I. 5. 211 
which is expressed not the condition on which the readers might hope for 
the heavenly κληρονομία, but the reason why they possess expectations of it. 
The chief emphasis lies not on ἐν δυνάμει Θεοῦ (Schott), but on φρουρουμένους 
. . . εἰς σωτηρίαν, Inasmuch as the former expression serves only to define the 
φρουρεῖσθαι more precisely. Gerhard incorrectly makes the accusative depend 
on ἀναγεννῆσας. The prep. ἐν (as distinguished from the following διά) points 
out the δύναμις Θεοῦ as the causa efficiens (Gerhard), so that Luther’s: “ out of 
God’s power” is in sense correct; the φρουρεῖσθαι is based on the div, Θεοῦ. 
Steinmeyer wrongly explains, referring to Gal. 111. 23, the δύναμις Θεοῦ as the 
φρουρά Within which the Christians as believers (διὰ πίστεως equal to πιστεύοντες 1) 
are kept, velut sub vetere T. lex carcerum instar exstitit, in quibus οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον 
ὄντες custodiebantur. To assume an antithesis between the div. Θεοῦ and the 
law in explanation of this passage, is entirely unjustifiable. By div. Θεοῦ is 
not to be understood, with De Wette and Weiss (p. 189), the Holy Spirit; 
He is never in any passage of the N. T. (not even in Luke i. 35) designated 
by these words. The means by which the power of God effects the preserva- 
tion is the ziorc,! the ultimate origin of which, nevertheless, is also the gra- 
cious will of God. -— On φρουρουμένους, Vorstius rightly remarks: notatur tavis 
custodia, quae praesidium habet adjunctum.2?, The word by which the apostle 
even here makes reference to the subsequent ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς, ver. 6, has 
its nearer definition in the following εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, Which 
by Calvin (haee duo membra appositive lego, ut posterius sit prioris expositio, rem 
unam duobus modis exprimit), Steiger, and others is joined to ἀναγεννῆσας as a 
co-ordinate adjunct to εἰς κληρονομίαν. It is preferable to connect them with 
φρουρουμένους ; the more so that κληρονομία, “ with its predicates, so fully char- 
acterizes the object of hope, that εἰς σωτηρίαν, «.7.4., would add nothing 
further” (Wiesinger). The introduction of ὑμᾶς, too, is decidedly opposed 
to the former construction. There is nothing to support the connection 
with πίστεως, in which σωτηρία would be regarded as the object of faith. Ac- 
cording to the correct construction, the verbal conception is more nearly 
defined by the addition of the origin, means, and end, cf. vv. 2, 3.2 The 
word σωτηρία is here —as the conjoined ἑτοίμη ἀποκαλυφθῆναι Shows — ἃ positive 
conception; namely: the salvation effected and completed by Christ, not 
simply a negative idea, “deliverance from ἀπώλεια ᾿" (Weiss, p. 79). It does 


1 πίστις implies the entire and full Christian 
faith; not simply confidence in God (Weiss), 
nor the mere ““ confident assurance of the sal- 
vation which is ready to be revealed ”’ (Hof- 
mann); these are single elements which it 
includes, but which do not exhaust the idea. 
According to Schott, the apostle has omitted 
the article, in order to emphasize the fact that 
he means “that faith which, as to its inmost 
nature, is not dependent on sight’? (!). 

2 Aretius rightly observes: “ militare est 
vocabulum φρουρά: praesidium. Pii igitur, 
dum sunt in periculis, sciant totidem eis di- 
vinitus parata esse praesidia: millia millium 
custodiunt eos. Finis est salus.” Bengel also 


aptly says: ‘* haereditas servata est; haeredes 
custodiuntur, neque illa his, neque hi deerunt 
illi.” : 

3 Schott justly calls attention to the relation 
of φρουρουμένους to τετηρημένην: ‘‘ If the re- 
serving of the inheritance for Christians is not 
to be fruitless, it must be accompanied by a 
+ » « preserving of them on earth for that 
inheritance.” He states the difference between 
the two expressions thus: ‘As regards the 
inheritance, it is only necessary that its exist- 
ence should not cease. Christians, on the other 
hand, must be guarded and preserved from 
influences endangering their state of salva- 
tion.” 


212 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


not follow from the circumstance that «Anpovouia and σωτηρία are Synonymous 
terms, that the former is “only the negative side of the completed salvation.” 
— The verb ἀποκαλυφθῆναι is here, as elsewhere, used to denote the disclosure 
of what is already in existence (with God, ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ver. 4), but as yet, 
hidden. ἕτοιμος is here, like μέλλων often, joined with the inf. pass. (see Gal. 
iii. 23. On the use of the inf. aor. in this connection, see Winer, p. 311 f. 
ΓΕ. T., 332]); μέλλων, nevertheless, has a less strong force. The future salva- 
tion lies ready to be revealed, that is to say: ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ, by which is 
denoted the time when the world’s history will be closed (not “the relatively 
last; Bengel: In comparatione temporum V. T.; but absolutely the last time 
ἐν ἀποκαλύψει ’1, Χρ., ver. 7.” Wiesinger).1. When this time will be, the 
apostle does not say; but his whole manner of expression indicates that in 
hope it floated before his vision as one near at hand; cf. chap. iv. 7. 

Ver. 6. ἐν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε]. The verb expresses the liveliness of the Christian 
joy, equivalent to erult; it is stronger than χαίρειν, with which it is some- 
times connected (chap. iv. 18; Matt. v. 12; Rev. xix. 7).2—2év ᾧ refers 
either to the preceding thought, that the salvation is ready to be revealed,’ 
or to καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ. In the first construction ἀγαλλ. ---- in form as in meaning 
— is praesens, and denotes the present joy of the Christians over their future 
salvation (ἐν ᾧ: over which, cf. chap. iv. 4).6 In the second construction a 
double interpretation is possible, inasmuch as ἐν 6 may denote either the 
object or the time of the joy; in the first case the sense is: the καιρὸς ἔσχατος 
is for you an object of joy, because in it the salvation will be revealed; in 
the second case the sense is: in that last time ye shall rejoice (so Wiesinger 
and Hofmann); here the object of joy is doubtless not named, but it may 
be easily supplied, and the want of it therefore cannot be urged against this 
view (as opposed to Briickner). The last of these different views deserves 
the preference, both on account of the subsequent ὀλίγον ἄρτι... λυπηθέντες, 
which forms a distinct antithesis to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, and of the idea peculiar to 
the epistle, that in the present time the Christian has to suffer rather than 
to exult, and only in the future can he expect the full joy ;— and the preva- 
‘lent manner of conjunction, too, precisely in this section of the epistle, by 
which what follows is linked directly on to the word immediately preceding, 
cf. vv. 5, 8, 10, shows that ἐν ᾧ applies to καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ. In this combination, 
however, it is more natural to take év in the same sense as in that which it 


1 Schott unjustifiably supposes that the 
want of the article indicates that ‘‘ the σωτηρία 
would take place at a time which, from this 
very fact, must be regarded as the last.” 

2 Steinmeyer, whilst combating the opinion 
that ἀγαλλ. has a stronger force than χαίρειν, 
correctly describes the ἀγαλλίασις as “ affectio 
fervidior animi hilaris,’’ but χαρά unwarrant- 
ably as ‘‘ perpetua illa cordis laetitia, quae 
neque augeri queat neque imminui.” 

3 Calvin: ‘ Articulus in quo refert totum 
illud complexum de spe galutis in coelo reposi- 
tae;’’ so also Estius, Grotius, Calov, Steiger, 


Jachmann, De Wette, Briickner, Steinmeyer, 
Schott; similarly Gerhard, who, however, ap- 
plies it to all that precedes: ἀναγεννήσας, etc. 

 Oecum., Erasmus, Luther, Wiesinger, etc. 

5 Briickner explains ἐν ᾧ as above stated, 
but he understands ἀγαλλιᾶσθε in a future 
sense, “οἵ that which shall most surely come 
to pass;”’ this interpretation is undoubtedly 
inappropriate, inasmuch as the present assur- 
ance of the future salvation, stated in ver. 4, 
may now indeed be an object of rejoicing, but 
will not be so then, when that future salvation 
itself is attained. 


CHAP. I. 6. 218 
has before καιρῷ, rather than in another.1— Doubtless the present ἀγαλλιᾶσθε 
will then have a future force; but this occasions no difficulty, there being 
nothing uncommon in such a use of the present (cf. also Winer, p. 249 
[E. T., 265 f.]). — The present tense strongly emphasizes the certainty of 
the future joy, rays of which fall even on the present life.2—dAiyov ἄρτι]. 
ὀλίγον not of measure (Steiger), but of time, chap. v. 10, where it forms the 
antithesis to αἰώνιος; cf. Rev. xvii. 10; ἄρτι denotes present time. . The 
juxtaposition of the two words is explainable by the apostle’s hope that 
the καιρὸς ἔσχατος would soon begin. — εἰ δέον ἐστί, not an affirmative (Bengel), 
but a hypothetical parenthesis: si res ita ferat: if it must be so, that is, 
according to divine decree; cf. chap. iii. 17.3— λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς]. 
The aorist with ἄρτι has reference to the future joy: “after that ye have now 
for a short time been made sorrowful.” “It signifies the inward sadness, in 
consequence of outward experiences” (Wiesinger). — Particula év non solum 
est χρονικῆ, sed etiam αἰτιολογικῆ (Gerhard). Both meanings pass over into 
each other, so that ἐν is not to be interpreted as synonymous with διά. --- 
πειρασμοί are the events by which the faith of the Christian is proved or also 
tempted; here, specially the persecutions which he is called upon to endure 
at the hands of the unbelieving world: cf. Jas. i. 2; Acts xx. 19. By the 
addition of the adjective, the manifold nature of their different kinds is 
pointed out. 


REMARK. — When Schott, in opposition to the interpretation here given, 
maintains the purely present force of ἀγαλλ. on the ground that ‘‘it must be 
the apostle’s object to commend, by way of exhortation, the readers for their 
present state of mind,” it is to be remarked, (1) That the apostle here gives 
utterance to no exhortation; and (2) That the apostle might perfectly well direct 
his readers to the certainty of the future joy, in order to strengthen them for 
the patient endurance of their present condition of suffering. It is perfectly 
arbitrary to assert with Schott, that, by ἄρτι, the present trials, as transitory, are 
contrasted with the present joy, as enduring, as also to maintain, “‘ that, by the 
aorist λυπηϑέντες, the suffering is reduced to the idea of an ever-changing variety 
of individual momentary incidents, which, in virtue of the uniform joy, may 
always lie behind the Christian surmounted” (!). Schott insists again, without 
reason, that εἰ δέον [ἐστῇ cannot be taken as referring to the divine decree, in 
that it is ‘‘impossible to make the accomplished concrete fact of the λυπηθῆναι 
hypothetical with respect to the will of God;”’ for it is not clear why Peter 
should not characterize the λυπηθῆναι ἐν ποικ. πειρασμοῖς as something hypothetical 


1 Schott’s assertion, that, as a rule, ἀγαλλ. 
is connected by ἐν with its object, is erroneous. 
In the N. T. the passage, John ν. 35, at the 
most, can be quoted in support of this con- 
struction; whilst in Luke x. 21, ἐν accompa- 
nies the simple indication of time. In Luke 
i. 47, ἀγαλλ. is construed with ἐπί c. dat.; John 
Viii. 56, with wa. 

? It is altogether inappropriate to interpret 
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, with Augustine, as an imperative, 
the exhortations begin only in ver. 13. 


8 Incorrectly Steinmeyer: ‘Qui per pere- 
grinationis spatium, quamdiu necessarium est, 
contristati estis.’’ The older Protestant com- 
mentators, more especially, sometimes employ 
this passage to combat the arbitrary seeking 
after suffering; thus Luther says: ‘It is not 
to be our own works which we choose, but we 
must await what God lays upon us and sends, 
so that we go and follow, therefore thou mayest 
not thyself run after them.” 


214 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

here, whcre he does not as yet enter more particularly into the concrete facts. 
Nor can it be assumed that εἰ δέον (ἐστί) is added in order to remind the readers 
that the ποικιλοὶ πειρασμοί should, in reality, occasion no sadness, the less so that 
thus the intimately connected λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικ. πειρασμοῖς are torn asunder. 


Ver. 7. iva states the aim of the λυπηθῆναι ἐν. . . πειρασμοῖς, in order to 
console the readers with respect to it, “ that the approvedness of your faith may 
be found more precious than (that) of gold, which perisheth, yet it is tried by fire, 
to (your) praise, and glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” — 
δοκίμιον here, as in Jas. i. 3 (cf. in loco), equal to δοκιμῆ, the approvedness as 
the result of the trial (Rom. v. 3, 4; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13; Phil. ii. 22).1 
The strict signification “ medium of proof” is inappropriate, inasmuch as the 
aim of the λυπηθῆναι ἐν πειρασμοῖς cannot be stated as the glorification of these 
metpacuoi, but as only that of faith in its approvedness (in opposition to Stein- 
meyer). Unsuitable, too, is the interpretation “trial” (Brickner, Wiesinger), 
τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως being taken for 7 πίστις δοκιμαζομένη, inasmuch as it is not 
the trial of the faith, but the faith being tried that is to be compared with 
the gold. This substitution of ideas is not justifiable, inasmuch as the 
process applied to an object cannot be put for the object itself to which it is 
applied. Only if δοκίμιον denote a quality of faith, can a substitution of this 
kind take place. δοκίμιον must be taken as “approvedness,” and by ap- 
provedness of faith, the “ approved,” or rather “the faith approving itself.” 2 


REMARK. — What Schott had formerly alleged with respect to δοκίμιον is 
repeated by Hofmann, only by him it is carried further. By a highly artificial 
interpretation of Ps. xii. 7, LX X., and by the application of the rule established 
by him, ‘‘ that the neuter of the adjective does not stand in the place of an 
abstract attributive, but expresses the condition of something as a concrete 
reality, and, in conjunction with a genitive, denotes the object thereby named 
in this its condition,’? Hofmann makes out that it is here affirmed that ‘‘ at the 
revelation of Christ, it will be found that the faith of the readers has been 
subjected to purification, and is, in. consequence, free from dross.’? This whole 
interpretation is a pure matter of fancy; for doxiuwov—a circumstance which 
both Schott and Hofmann have left unnoticed —is not an adjective, but a real 
substantive, for δοκιμεῖον. ---- Cremer explains: ‘‘ dox, is not the touchstone only, in 
and for itself, but the trace left behind on it by the metal; therefore τὸ dox. τῆς 


1 δοκιμή in the N. T. has either an active or 
a passive signification; in the former it means 
** the trial which leads to approvedness,” as in 
2 Cor. viii. 2; in the latter, ‘‘ the approvedness 
effected by trial,” as in the passages quoted; 
or, better still, ‘a distinction must be drawn 
between a present and a perfect force, in that 
δοκιμή has a reflexive sense; either, then, the 
having approved itself, or the approving itself,” 
Cremer, s.v. 

2 Brickner raises the following objections 
to this interpretation: (1) That δοκίμιον can 
linguistically only be understood as means of 
proof, trial; and (2) That the part. pres., 


standing in opposition to χρυσίον (δοκιμαζομε- 
νου), does not presuppose the purification of 
the gold to have already taken place, and that, 
consequently, the πίστις δοκιμαζομένη only can 
be considered as compared with χρυσίον δοκι- 
μαζόμενον. But against this it must be ob- 
served that δοκίμιον has only the signification 
of “means of proof,’’ not of trial; and (3) 
That in the above interpretation it is not the 
already approved faith, but that faith which is 
being approved, or approving itself in tribula- 
tion, which is contrasted with gold which is 
being tried. 


CHAP: I. 7. 215 


πίστεως is that which results from the contact of πίστις with πειρασμοῖς, that by 
which faith is recognized as genuine, equal to the proof of faith.’’ But, in 
opposition to this, it must be remarked that fire, and not touchstone, is here 
conceived as the means of testing. 


ο΄ --πολυτιμότερον, «.7.4,, 18 by most interpreters closely connected with 

εὑρεθῇ; by others, again (Wolf, Pott, Steinmeyer, Wiesinger, Hofmann), sep- 
arated from it, and considered as in apposition to τὸ δοκέμιον iu. τ. mor. The 
following facts, however, are decisive against the latter construction: (1) 
That—as Wiesinger admits — this appositional clause,expresses “some- 
thing understood of itself.” (2) That the intention here is not to make an 
observation on faith, but to state what is the design of sorrow, namely, that 
the faith which is approving itself may be found to be one πολύτιμος. (3) 
That thus εὑρεθῇ would be deprived of any nearer definition, in that the sub- 
sequent εἰς has reference, not to εὑρεθῇ alone, but to the whole idea expressed. 
Yet it cannot well dispense with a nearer definition (in opposition to Hof- 
mann). — The genitive χρυσίου is, as almost all the interpreters take it, to be 
joined in sense directly with the comparative: “than the gold,” so that the 
δοκίμιον οὗ the faith is compared with the gold. Some commentators, like 
Beza, Grotius, Vorstius, Steinmeyer, Hofmann, assume an ellipsis (cf. Winer, 
p- 230 [E. T., 235]), supplying before χρυσίου the words ἢ τὸ δοκίμιον. In 
opposition it may be urged, however, not precisely “that this is cumbrous” 
(Briickner), but that the point of comparison is not properly the approval 
of faith, but the faith in the act of approving itself. Whilst comparing the 
faith with the gold, the apostle places the former above the latter; the reason 
of this he states in the attribute τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου connected with χρυσίου, by 
which reference is made to the imperishable nature of faith. To this first 
attribute he subjoins the second: διὰ πυρὸς δὲ δοκιμαζομένου, in order to name 
here also the medium of proving, to which the πειρασμοί, with respect to faith, 
correspond. Accordingly Wiesinger and Steinmeyer are wrong in asserting 
that in the interpretation here given the attribute τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου is inappro- 
priate. — ἀπολλύμενος : φθαρτός, cf. vv. 18, 23; also John vi. 27. For the posi- 
tion of the adjective with art. after an anarthrous subst., see Winer, p. 131 f. 
(E. T., 139). — διὰ πυρὸς δὲ doxtwagouévov. The particle δὲ seems to place this 
second adjunct in antithesis to the first (ἀπολλυμένου) (thus De Wette: 
“which is perishable, and yet is proved by fire;” so also Hofmann). But 
opposed to this view is the circumstance that the trial and purification of 
what is perishable is by no means anything to occasion surprise; it is there- 
fore more correct to find the purpose of the adjunct in this, that by it the 
idea of the δοκιμάζεσθαι is brought prominently forward. Vorstius remarks 
to the point: aurum igni committitur non ad iteritum, sed ad gloriam, sic fides 
eruci ad gloriam subjicitur. — For this comparison, see Job xxiii. 10; Prov. 
xvii. 3; Zech. xiii. 9.— εὑρεθῇ εἰς ἔπαινον καὶ δόξαν καὶ τιμῆν]. The verb εὑρεθῆναι, 
“to be found to be,” is more significant than eiva (ef. Winer, p. 572 f. [E. T., 
616), and has reference to the judicial investigation on the last day of judg- 
ment. The words following form an adjunct to the whole preceding thought: 
iva... εὑρεθῇς Beza, rightly: hic agitur de ipsorum electorum laude, ete.; thus: 


216 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


“to your praise, glory, and honor.” Schott quite arbitrarily interprets ἔπαινος 
as in itself: “the judicial recognition” (as opposed to this, cf. Phil. i. 11, 
iv. 8); τιμή : “the moral estimation of the person arising therefrom” (as 
opposed to this, cf. 1 Pet. iii. 7), and δόξα: “the form of glory” (as opposed 
to this, cf. Gal. i. 5; Phil. i. 11). Steinmeyer incorrectly applies the words 
not to the persons, but to their faith. δόξα and τιμή in the N. T. stand fre- 
quently together; in connection with ἔπαινος, here only. The juxtaposition 
of these synonymous expressions serves to give prominence to the one 
idea of honorable recognition common to them all. Standing as δύξα does 
between ἔπαινος and τιμῆ, it cannot signify “the allotment of the possession 
of glory ” (Wiesinger), but it is “glory, praise.” -- ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; 
not through, but at, the revelation of Jesus Christ, that is, on the day of 
His return, which is at once the ἀποκάλυψις δικαιοκρισίας tod Θεοῦ (Rom. 11. 5) 
and the ἀποκάλυψις τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (Rom. viii. 19). 

Ver. 8. The longing of the believers is directed to the ἀποκάλυψις "Ino. 
Χριστοῦ, He being the object of their love and joy. This thought is subjoined 
to what precedes in two relative clauses, in order that thereby the apostle 
may advert to the glory of the future salvation.—év οὐκ εἰδότες ἀγαπᾶτε, 
“whom, although ye know Him not (that is, according to the flesh, or in His 
earthly personality), ye love.” The object of εἰδότες is easily supplied from 
_ ὅν, according to the usage in Greek. The reading ἰδόντες expresses substan- 
tially the same thought. — Since ἀγάπη, properly speaking, presupposes per- 
sonal acquaintance, the clause οὐκ εἰδότες is significantly added, in order to 
set forth prominently that the relation to Christ is a higher than any based 
on a knowledge after the flesh. — In the clause following — co-ordinate with 
this —the thought is carried further, the apostle’s glance being again di- 
rected to the future appearance of Christ. — εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ 
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. As regards the construction, εἰς ὅν can hardly be taken with ἀγαλ- 
λιᾶσθε, the participles ὁρῶντες and πιστεύοντες thus standing absolutely (Fron- 
miiller), but, as most interpreters are agreed, must be construed with 
πιστεύοντες. The more precise determination of the thought must depend on 
whether ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is, with De Wette, Briickner, Winer, Steinmeyer, Weiss, 
Schott, to be taken as referring to present, or, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, 
to future joy. In the first case, ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is joined in the closest manner 
with πιστεύοντες, and ἄρτι only with μὴ ὁρῶντες (De Wette: “and in Him, 
though now seeing Him not, yet believing ye exult”); in the second, εἰς ὃν 

_ πιστεύοντες δέ is to be taken as the condition of the ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, and ἄρτι 
to be joined with πιστεύοντες (Wiesinger: “on whom for the present believ- 
ing, —although without seeing, — ye exult”). In support of the first view, 
it may be advanced, that thus ἀγαλλιᾶσθε corresponds more exactly to ἀγαπᾶτε, 
and that μὴ ὁρῶντες forms a more natural antithesis to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε than to 
πιστεύοντες ; for the second, that it is precisely one of the peculiarities char- 
acteristic of this epistle, that it sets forth the present condition of believers 
as one chiefly of suffering, which only at the ἀποκάλυψις of the Lord will be 
changed into one of joy; that the more precise definition: χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ 
καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ, as also the subsequent κομιζόμενοι, have reference to the future; 
that the ἄρτι seems to involve the thought: “now ye see Him not, but then ye 


CHAP. I. 9. 217 
see Him, and shall rejoice in beholding Him;” and lastly, that the apostle, 
iv. 13, expressly ascribes the ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι to the future. On these grounds the 
second view is preferable to the first. The present ἀγαλλιᾶσθε need excite 
the less surprise, that the future joy is one not only surely pledged to the 
Christian, but which its certainty makes already present. It may, indeed, 
be supposed that ἀγαλλιᾶσθε must be conceived as in the same relation to 
time with ἀγαπᾶτε; yet, according to the sense, it is not the ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, but 
the πιστεύειν, Which forms the second characteristic of the Christian life 
annexed to ἀγαπᾷν. It is not, however, the case, that on account of the 
present πιστεύοντες, ἀγαλλ. also must be taken with a present signification 
(Schott), since love and faith are the present ground of the joy beginning 
indeed now, but perfected only in the future. The particle of time ἄρτι 
applies not only to μὴ ὁρῶντες, but likewise to πιστεύοντες dé; the sense of μὴ 
δυῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ is not this, that although they now do not see, yet still 
believe-—the not seeing and the believing do not form an antithesis, they 
belong to each other; but this, that the Christians do not indeed see, but 
believe. On the distinction between οὐκ εἰδότες and μὴ ὁρῶντες, see Winer, 
p- 453 (E. T., 485). — Χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλῆτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ serves to intensify 
ἀνεκλάλητος, ἀπ. Aey., “unspeakable,” is either “what cannot be 
expressed in words” (thus ἀλάλητος, Rom. viii. 26), or “what cannot be ex- 
hausted by words.”} δεδοξασμένη, according to: Weiss, means: “the joy 
which already bears within it the glory, in which the future glory comes 
into play even in the Christian’s earthly life;” similarly, Steinmeyer: 
“hominis fidelis laetitia jam exstat δεδοξασμένη, quoniam δόξαν ejus futuram prae- 
sentem habet ac sentit;” but on this interpretation relations are introduced 
which in and for itself the word does not possess. δεδοξασμένος means simply 
“glorified ;” χαρὰ δεδοξασμ. is accordingly the joy which has attained unto 
perfected glory: but “the imperfect joy of the Christian here (Wiesinger, 
Hofmann), and not the joy of the world, which as of sense and transitory is 
a joy ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ" (Fronmiiller), is to be regarded as its antithesis; so that this 
expression also seems to show that ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is to be understood of the 
future exultation. 

Ver. 9. κομιίζομενοι τὸ τέλος, K.7.A., gives the reason of that joy; the parti- 
ciple links itself simply on to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, “inasmuch as ye obtain,” etc., and 
supplies confirmation that what is here spoken of is not present but future 
joy. It is arbitrary to interpret, with De Wette and Briickner: “inasmuch 
as ye are destined to obtain;” or with Steiger: “inasmuch as even now in 
Joined with the future present ἀγαλλίασθε, the participle 


foretaste ye obtain.’ 
must also be in the present.2 Cf. with this passage, more especially chap. 


ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. 


᾿ 


1 Steinmeyer gives an unjustifiable applica- already in the assurance of faith). Schott: 


tion to the word, by saying: ‘* Meminerimus 
τῶν ποικιλων πειρασμῶν. Si quidem plurimae 
illae tentationes totidem laetitiae causas affe- 
runt, sine dubio ἡ χαρά eodem sensu ἀνεκλάλητος 
exstat, quO πειρασμοὶ Nequeunt enumerari.” 

2 Winer, in the 5th ed. (p. 403), gives the 
same interpretation as De Wette; in the 6th 
(p. 306) and the 7th (p. 330 [E. T., 351 f.]), on 
the other hand: “88 receiving (they are that 


‘* Since ye are about to, or on the way to, guther 
in (!) like a harvest the end of your faith.” 
Schott is clearly wrong when he asserts that if 
the apostle had had the future joy in his mind, 
he must have written κομισάμενοι On account 
of the δεδοξασμένῃ, ‘ because the attaining of 
the end of salvation, which is still in the act 
of being accomplished, could not be placed 
parallel with the final glorification which has 


218 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


v. 4. --- κομίζειν : “obtain” (cf. chap. v. 4), is in the N. T. frequently used of 
the obtaining of what will be assigned to man at the last judgment; 2 Pet. 
ii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 10; Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25. Steinmeyer incorrectly ex- 
plains the word: secum portare. — τὸ τέλος, not “ the reward” = μισθὸς (Beza, 
Vorstius, etc.), neither is it “the reward of victory” (Hofmann);! but it is 
the end of faith, that to which it is directed; see Cremer, 8. v. —ri¢ πίστεως 
ὑμῶν refers back to πιστεύοντες, ver. 8. --- σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. The salvation is 
indeed one already present; but here is meant the Christians’ completed 
salvation, of which they shall be partakers, ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (ver. 5). —On 
ψυχῶν, Bengel remarks: ANIMA praecipue salvatur: corpus in resurrectione 
participat; cf. Jas. i. 21; John xii. 25; Luke xxi. 19. 

Vy. 10-12. The design of this paragraph is not to prove the truth of the 
apostolic doctrine by its agreement with that of the prophets (Gerhard), but 
te bring prominently forward the glory of the σωτηρία before spoken of, by 
presenting it as the object of prophetic search. Calvin: “salutis hujus 
pretium inde commendat, quod in eam toto studio intente fuerunt prophetae.” 
Wiesinger also; in such a way, however, that he holds the real tendency to 
be this, that the readers should recognize themselves as “ those favored ones 
who, by the preaching of the gospel, had been made partakers of the salva- 
tion foretold in the O. T.” Schott thinks that here the position of ‘the 
Christians is compared very favorably with that of the prophets, since 
the latter had to cling to a bare word referring to an indefinite time; the 
former, on the other hand, have in their possession of salvation the pledge 
of a blessed future — indeed, in a certain sense even possess it. — But how 
much is here introduced! 

Ver. 10. περὲ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηρεύνησαν προφῆται]. The σωτηρία, 
to which the search of the prophets was directed, is, as the connection: περὶ 
ἧς owt. Shows, the previously mentioned σωτηρία ψυγῶν, which is the τέλος of 
faith. Wiesinger and Schott extend the idea so as to include within it the 
present salvation. This is correct thus far, that the future salvation is only 
the completion of the present; but it is precisely to the completion that the 
apostle’s glance is directed. De Wette is wrong in understanding by σωτηρία 
“the work of salvation.” — Both verbs express the earnest search. ἐξερευνᾷν 
is in the N. T. ἀπ. Aey.(LXX., 1 Sam. xxiii. 23: YD; 1 Chron. xix. 3: 1p). 
The prefixed ἐκ serves to intensify the idea, without hinting that the prophets 
selected the right time from among different periods (Steiger) ; see the other 
passages in the N. T. where the verb ἐκζητεῖν occurs. The aim of their 
search is more precisely defined in ver. 11. Luther’s translation is inexact: 
“after which salvation;” περὶ means rather: in respect to, with regard to. — 
Calvin justly remarks: quum dicit prophetas sciscitatos esse et sedulo inquisivisse, 
hoc ad eorum scripta aut doctrinam non pertinet, sed ad PRIVATUM DESIDERIUM 
quo quisque aestuavit. A distinction is here drawn between the individual 
activity put forth on the basis of the revelation of which they had been 


already taken place,’’ since there is nothing 1 The expression κομίζειν indeed shows that 
unreasonable in the idea that the joy of the Peter pictured to himself the reAos of faith as 
Christians is glorified when they receive the a trophy, but not that τέλος literally means 
end of their salvation. “trophy.” 


CHAP Δ 11; 219 
made partakers, and that revelation itself (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann).! 
To προφῆται is subjoined the nearer definition: οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος mpo- 
φητεύσαντες, by which some prophets are not distinguished from others, as 
Hofmann thinks, but all are characterized according to their function.?— ἢ 
εἰς ὑμὰς χάρις, either from the prophets’ standpoint: “destined for you” (De 
Wette, Brickner), or from that of the apostles: “the grace of which ye 
have been made partakers” (Wiesinger, Schott). The first is the prefer- 
able view. χάρις is not to be taken as identical with σωτηρία (as opposed to 
Wiesinger), but the difference in expression points to a distinction in idea. 
χάρις denotes both the present and the future, σωτηρία only the future. Hof- 
mann attaches particular importance to the fact that ὑμᾶς and not ἡμᾶς 15 here 
used; assuming that by ὑμᾶς the readers must be understood to be heathen 
Christians. This is, however, incorrect, since Peter nowhere in his epistle 
makes a distinction between heathen and Jewish Christians; by ὑμᾶς the 
readers are addressed not as heathen Christians, but as Christians in general; 
cf. also vv. 3, 4: ἀναγεννήῆσας ἡμᾶς. . . τετηρημένους εἰς ὑμᾶς. 

Ver. 11 stands in close grammatical connection with the preceding, épev- 
νῶντες being conjoined with the verba finita of ver. 10; what follows states 
the object of the ἐρευνᾷν. --- εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρόν]. τίνα refers to the time itself, 
'“ποῖον to its character. Steinmeyer (appealing without justification to Rom. 
iv. 13) explains ἦ incorrectly: vel potius; vel, ul rectius dicam. — ἐδήλου, not 
“referred to” (Luth.; or significaret, Vulg.), but “revealed,” as Heb. ix. 8, 
xii. 17, ete. Vorstius supplies: gratiam illam exstituram, de qua et ipsi vatici- 
nabantur ; this is incorrect. εἰς... καιρόν is conjoined rather directly — 
though not as its real object, but as a secondary determination — with éd7Aov. 
An object is not to be supplied (neither ταῦτα nor τὴν χάριν ταύτην, Steiger), 
as ἐδήλου is in intimate union with the participle προμαρτυρόμενον (De Wette, 
Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott), by which “at once the act of δηλοῦν and its 
object are exactly determined” (De Wette).— 1d ἐν αὐτοὶς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ ]. 
By this the revealing subject is mentioned: the prophets only expressed 
what the Spirit within them communicated to them; “the τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς is to 
be taken as a special act of ἐδήλου" (Wiesinger), ef. besides, Matt. xxii. 43 
and 2 Pet. i. 21.4— This Spirit is characterized as the τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ; 
not in that it bears witness of Christ (Bengel: Spiritus Christi: testans de 
Christo; thus also Grotius, Augustine, Jachmann), for Χριστοῦ is the sub- 


1 Steinmeyer denies this distinction, and 
says, interpreting τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρόν, ver. 11, 
by “‘ desola inde indole temporis:” ‘* neminem 
latebit, eos saepenumero de crescente piorum 
hominum desiderio nec non de aucta impro- 
borum protervitate verba fecisse; . . . ecce τὰ 
σημεῖα τοῦ μέλλοντος καιροῦ, quae indagata 
praedicarunt.” According to this, ἐκζητεῖν and 
ἐξερευνᾷν would be indagata praedicare (!). 

2 Bengel: ‘“Articulus hic praetermissus 
grandem facit orationem, nam auditorem a 
determinata individuorum consideratione ad 
ipsum genus spectandum traducit; sic ver. 12: 
angeli.” 


3 Bengel: ‘*in quod vel quale tempus; guod 
innuit tempus per se, quasi dicas aeram suis 
numeris notatam: quale dicit tempus ex event- 
ibus variis noscendum.” 

4 Hofmann is indeed not mistaken in saying 
that τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς mv. Xp. is a designation of 
the Spirit working prophetic knowledge in the 
prophets, and not of a constant indwelling of 
it, — only it must be observed that the expres- 
sion here employed says nothing as to how 
or in what manner the Spirit dwelt in the 
prophets. 


220 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

jective and not the objective genitive, but because it is the Spirit “which 
Christ has and gives” (Wiesinger); see Rom. viii. 8. The expression is to 
be explained from the apostle’s conviction of the pre-existence of Christ, and 
is here used in reference strictly to the προμαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα, 
κιτ.λ., directly conjoined with it. Barnabas, chap. v.: prophetae ab ipso 
habentes donum in illum prophetarunt. 


REMARK. — By far the greater number of the interpreters rightly see, in the 
term here applied to the Spirit, a testimony to the real pre-existence of Christ. 
Not so De Wette, who finds in it merely the expression of the view ‘‘that the 
work of redemption is the same in both the O. and N. T., and that the Spirit of 
God at work in the former is identical with the Spirit of Christ;’? and Weiss 
(pp. 247-249), who explains the name thus: That the Spirit which was at work 
in the prophets was the same as ‘‘ that which Christ received at His baptism, 
and since then has possessed;”’ similarly Schmid also (Bibl. Theol., p. 163), 
‘*the Spirit of God, which, in after time, worked in the person of Christ.’’ 
Weiss seeks to prove, indeed, that ‘‘ Christ had, in the pre-existent Messianic 
Spirit, an ideal, or, in a certain sense, a real pre-existence;”’ but, in this way, 
reflex ideas are attributed to the apostles, which certainly lay far from their 
mind. Besides, Weiss himself admits, that, in 1 Cor. x. 4, 9, reference is made 
to the pre-existent Christ; but it cannot be concluded, from Acts ii. 36, that 
Peter did not believe it. Schott, too, in his interpretation, does not abstain 
from introducing many results of modern thought, when he designates τὸ mv. Xp. 
here as the Spirit “οὗ the Mediator continually approaching the consummation 
of salvation (!), but as yet supernaturally concealed in God.’’ Steinmeyer does 
not touch the question of the pre-existence of Christ; he finds an adequate 
explanation of the expression in the remark of Bengel, although he takes 
Χριστοῦ as a subject. gen. 


— προμαρτυρόμενον]. This verb compos. occurs nowhere else in the N. T., 
and in none of the classical writers; the simplex means properly: “to call 
to witness;” then, “to swear to, to attest;” προμαρτύρεσθαι is therefore: “to 
attest beforehand.” 1 —The object of ἐδήλου... προμαρτ. is τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθῆματα 
καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα dogac]. On this Luther remarks, that it can be understood 
of both kinds of suffering, of those which Christ Himself bore, as well as of 
those which we endure. The majority of interpreters conceive the reference 
to be to the former: Oecumenius, Theophyl., Erasmus, Grotius, Aretius, 
Piscator (cf. Luke xxiv. 26), Vorstius, Hensler, Stolz, Hottinger, Knapp, 
Steiger, De Wette, Briickner, Steinmeyer, Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt, 
Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann, etc.; but not so Calvin: non tractat Petr. 
quod Christo sit proprium, sed de universali ecclesiae statu disserit ; Bolten and 
Clericus explain it of the sufferings of the Christians; the same position is 
taken up in the first edition of this commentary. Since the main tendency 


1 Schott justly remarks that δηλοῦν and 
προμαρτύρεσθαι are not identical with προφη- 
τεύειν, but that they denote the “action of the 
Spirit,”’ by means of which ‘‘ He communicated 
to the prophets the prophecies after which they 
were to inquire.” But he is evidently mistaken 


when he asserts that this identification takes 
place in the above interpretation. — Nor is 
Schott warranted in supposing that in προμαρ, 
the apostle emphatically shows that the man- 
ner of communication ‘* was a revelation in 
the form of speech, and not an inward vision.” 


CHAP. I. 12. 991 


of the paragraph, vv. 10-12, is to give special prominence to the glorious 
nature of the believers’ σωτηρία, the latter view is favored by the connection 
of thought. But, on the other hand, there is nothing opposed to the assump- 
tion, that the apostle here mentions the facts on which the σωτηρία is founded, 
as the substance of the testimony of the Spirit of God in the prophets. The 
expression τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα too, which must be interpreted on the anal- 
ogy of τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος, goes to show that by it are to be understood the 
sufferings which were ordained or appointed to Christ (Wiesinger). — On 
the plural τὰς... δόξας, Bengel says: Plurale: gloria resurrectionis, gloria 
ascensionis, gloria judicti extremi et regni coelestis; thus also Grotius, De 
Wette, Steiger, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. But it might be more correct 
to explain the plural in this way, that as the one suffering of Christ compre- 
hends in it a plurality of sufferings, so does His δόξα a plurality of glories. 
Hofmann: “by παθήματα is to be understood the manifold afflictions in which 
the one suffering of Christ consisted, while the manifold glorifyings which 
go to make up His glory are included under δόξαι. 1 Besides, it must be 
noted that the suffering of Christ is always designated by the plural παθή- 
ματα (with the exception of Heb. ii. 9, where we have: τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου), 
but His glory always by the singular déga.— As the παθήματα and δόξαι of 
Christ are the object of ἐδήλου προμαρτυρόμενον, so by καιρός, to which the 
épevvav of the prophets was directed, the time is referred to when this salva- 
tion would actually be accomplished. For this reason, then, ἐξηρεύνησαν, ver. 
10, cannot again be repeated in ἐρευνῶντες (Wiesinger, Schott), as if the εἰς 
τίνα... καιρόν referred directly to the appearance of the σωτηρία ; the apostle’s 
thought is rather this, that in their search as to the time of the sufferings, 
etc., of Christ, the prophets had before their eyes, as that with respect to 
which they sought to obtain knowledge, the σωτηρία of which believers were 
to be made partakers. 


REMARK. — Definite corroboration of the ideas here expressed is to be found 
in the Book of Daniel, chap. xii. 4, 9, 10, 13, The fundamental presupposition 
is that the ‘‘when”’ of the fulfilment was unknown to the prophets; according 
to ver. 12, all that was revealed to them was that it would take place only in the 
times to come. De Wette asserts too much when he says that searching as to 
the time cannot be predicated of the genuine prophets of ancient Judaism, 
but of Daniel only, who pondered over the seventy years of Jeremiah. But 
although the words of Daniel may have given occasion for the apostle’s state- 
ment, still that statement is not incapable of justification. If the apostles 
searched as to the time when the promises of Christ would receive accomplish- 
ment, why should it not be presupposed that similarly the prophets, too, 
inquired into that which the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ testified beforehand to them, more 
especially as to the καιρός of its fulfilment ? 


Ver. 12. oi¢ ἀπεκαλύφθη is linked on by way of explanation to ἐρευνῶντες : 
“to whom it was revealed,” i.e., “in that it was revealed to them.” This is 


1 Hofmann’s opinion, that Peter had chiefly 15, arises from the fact that he applies ὑμᾶς 
in his mind the passages in Isa. xlix. 6, 7, liii. specially to the Gentiles. 


222 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


to be taken neither as an antithesis to the searching, nor as the result of it, 
-but as an element accompanying—and stimulating —it; see Wiesinger 


and Schott in loc. —éri οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν (ἡμῖν) δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά]. ὅτι is not 
causal here (Luther: “for;” so also Luthardt and Hofmann). Opposed 


to this is the circumstance that if ὅτι, «.7.4., be taken as a parenthesis, and 
the ἃ viv ἀνηγγέλη, κ.τ.}., following be joined with ἀπεκαλύφθη (Hofmann), this 
sentence is strangely broken up; if, on the other hand, ἃ viv, «.7.A., be united 
with what immediately precedes (Luther), ἀπεκαλύφθη is plainly much too 
bald. Nor can it be denied that ὅτι naturally connects itself with ἀπεκαλύφθη, 
and ἃ viv is joined with διηκόνουν αὐτά. ὅτι states, then, not the reason, but 
the contents of what was revealed to the prophets.!— διακονεῖν, both in the 
N. T. and in the classics, is frequently a transitive verb joined with the 
accusative, and that in such a way that the accusative denotes either 
the result of the διακονεῖν, or the thing to which the service is directed 
(iv. 10). Here, where αὐτά is the accusative dependent on διηκόνουν, the 
latter is the case; for that which is anounced to the Christians is not 
the result of the prophets’ ministrations, but that to which they were 
directed. That “they did their part in bringing to pass by their ministra- 
tion the salvation which is now preached” (Wiesinger, and Schott also), is 
a thought in no way hinted at here, and in which “did their part” is a purely 
arbitrary addition. The ministration of the prophets consisted not in the 
bringing to pass of the salvation, but in the proclaiming of that which was 
revealed to them (Briickner); and this is what is conveyed by αὐτά. --- They 
exercised this ministration, οὐχ, etc., “not for their, rather for your (our) bene- 
Jit,” i.e., in such a way that its application was to you (us), not to themselves. 
—On δέ after the negation, as distinguished from ἀλλά, cf. Winer, p. 411 
(E. T., 442 f.).2. The difference in the reading ὑμῖν or ἡμῖν does not essen- 
tially affect the meaning, since by ὑμῖν, though the readers of the epistle are 
indeed addressed in the first instance, all the rest of the Christians are natur- 
ally thought of as included. Still, the idea expressed in the ὑμῖν or ἡμῖν δέ 
is not without difficulty. Taken strictly, the οὐχ ἑαυτοις alone was known to 
the prophets —and along with this likewise, that it was for others, i.e., for 
those who lived at the time of its fulfilment. But as these others are the 
Christians, the apostle directly opposes ὑμῖν de to οὐχ éavroic — that is, inserts 


1 Luthardt interprets: ‘* for there the object trare jussi erant. But is ὅτε then not still 


was a future one, from which the veil had to 
be removed by single acts of God; here, it isa 
present one, which accordingly the messengers 
simply proclaim, in the power of the now ever 
present Spirit of God;”? how much is im- 
ported here! Steinmeyer admits that ὅτι is 
not to be taken αἰτιολογικῶς, but denies at the 
same time that it states the argumentum τῆς 
ἀποκαλυψεως ; he assumes an inversion, which 
is to be resolved thus: οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη (se. 
ταῦτα, namely τὰ 720. x. δόξαι Xp.) οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ὑμῖν διηκόνουν αὐτά, and then inter- 
prets: h. 6. quibus manifestata sunt, non in 
ipsorum commodum, sed quia nobis ea minis- 


αἰτιολογικῶςἢῷ And on what ground should 
an inversion so very harsh be adopted? 

* 2 §chott’s singular assertion, that “ov... 
δέ does not cancel ἑαυτοῖς simply, and put ὑμῖν 
in its place, but that δὲ adds only something 
new to the preceding which remains stand- 
ing’? (in spite of the ov!), is based on a mis-» 
conception of what is said by Hartung, 
Partikeliehre, I. 171, to which Schott appeals. 
‘‘Others than those addressed are not ex- 
cluded; the latter only are indicated as those 
for whom the prophecy was intended; ” thus 
Hofmann, too, incorrectly. 


CHAP. I.-12. 223 
the definite for the indefinite. — Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner, join αὐτά closely 
with the ἃ which follows: “the same as that which now is proclaimed to 
you;” this is, however, incorrect. αὐτά is nowhere in the N. T. construed 
thus with a relative to which it is antecedent; it applies rather to what has 
been formerly mentioned; here, therefore, doubtless to that of which the 
πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ testified beforehand to the prophets, and what they prophesied 
of the χάρις, of which the readers had been made partakers. It is less fitting 
to limit the reference to the τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα, ἃ, x.7.4., being joined to it 
in a somewhat loose way. — It is entirely arbitrary for Hofmann to assert that 
“ Peter does not speak of any prophecies in general, but of the written records 
in which were contained the prediction of the prophets, who had foretold 
the extension of grace to the Gentile world,” — there is nothing here to lead 
to the supposition that the *postle makes any reference to written records, — 
and predictions with regard to the heathen. — By means of the following 
ἃ viv ἀνηγγέλη, «.7.2., the apostle insists that what the prophets foretold is 
that which is now proclaimed to the readers; viv emphasizes the present, in 
which the facts of salvation are proclaimed as having already taken place, 
as contradistinguished from the time when they were predicted as future. — 
διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένών ὑμᾶς (ἐν) πνεύματι ἁγίῳ]. For the construction of the 
verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, 6. ace., cf. Gal. i. 9; Winer, p. 209 (E. T., 229). --- ͵ Ἐἶὺ 
the reading: ἐν xv. be adopted, the Holy Spirit is conceived of as the power, 
as it were, encompassing and swaying them; if the other reading, as the 
moving and impelling cause. Like prophecy (ver. 11), the preaching of 
the gospel proceeds from the illumination and impulse of the Holy Spirit. — 
ἀποστωλέντι ax’ οὐρανοῦ refers to the events of Pentecost; since then the Holy 
Spirit has His abode and is at work in the church.!_ Though the same Spirit 
was already in the prophets, ver. 11, He had not yet at that time been sent 
from heaven. Who the individuals were who had preached the gospel to the 
readers, Peter does not say. No doubt the form of the apostle’s expression 
does not compel us to think of him as excluded from the τῶν εὐαγγελ. ; yet it 
is very probable that Peter, had he intended to include himself, would some- 
how have given this to be understood. — εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι]. 
The relative ἃ clearly goes back to ἃ viv ἀνηγγέλη. It is arbitrary to under- 
stand (with Schott) by that which the angels desired to see, “the nature 
and origin of the moral transformation wrought by the proclamation of the 
gospel;” or, with Hofmann, to give it this reference, “that Christ has died, 
and been glorified in such a way that now He can and should be preached 
to the heathen as having died and been glorified for them;” it includes 
not only the παθήματα and δόξαι of Christ (Wiesinger), but the whole contents 
of the message of salvation (Briickner), which, as it is a testimony to the 
facts of redemption, is also a preaching of the σωτηρία founded on them, 


1 Weiss’s assertion (Die Petrin. Frage, 
above mentioned, p. 642), that, “ἢ there be 
here an allusion to the outpouring of the Spirit 
on the day of Pentecost, Paul could not have 
belonged to those who had preached the gospel 
to the reade-s,” is without foundation, as it is 


not said here that the εὐαγγελισάμενοι ὑμᾶς 
belonged to those who received the Holy Spirit 
at Pentecost, but only that they preached in 
that Spirit, which was sent from heaven at 
Pentecost; and this applies to Paul no less " 
than to the other apostles, etc. 


224 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
which is ἑτοίμη ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (ver. 5), and which the believers 
will obtain (ver. 9). --- ἐπιθυμοῦσι must not be taken as an aorist,? for the 
question is not as to what the angels did at the time of the prophets, but as 
to what they are now doing. That after which they long is the παρακύψαι εἰς 
On the inf. aor. after ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, see Winer, p. 310 f. (E. T., 531). — 
παρακύπτειν, properly, “to bend to the side so as to examine a thing,” means 
when joined with εἰς not only “to look towards,” but “to look into any 
thing,” and that in order to obtain a more accurate knowledge of the object 
in question. The παρά of the verb indicates that the angels stand outside 
the work of redemption, inasmuch as it is not for them, but for man 
(cf. Heb. ii. 16). The addition of this clause brings prominently forward the 
idea, not that the work of salvation is a mystery, —concealed even from 
the angels, —but that that which has been proclaimed to the readers is 
something so glorious that even the angels had a wish and a longing to see 
what was its fashion, and what the course of its development (cf. Eph. iii. 
10). Nor is it implied in ἐπιθυμοῦσι that “the angels cannot attain to a 
knowledge of the economy of salvation” (Schott). It is more than 
doubtful whether there be here any reference to Exod. xxv. 20, as several 
interpreters assume.4 

The first group of exhortations extends from ver. 13 to the end of 
the chapter. — Ver. 15. First exhortation, which forms the basis of those 
which follow. The τελοίως ἐλπίζειν is the foundation upon which the whole 
moral-religious life of the Christian must be raised. — διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς 
ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν]. διό does not refer back to any single thought in 
what precedes, certainly not to the glory of the σωτηρία touched upon in vv. 
10 ff. (Calvin: ex magnitudine et excellentia gratiae deducit exhortationem), 
still less to the thought expressed vv. 5-9: “that the Christian goes through 
trial towards a glorious destiny ” (De Wette), but to the whole of the fore- 
going lines of thought (Schott), which, however, have their point of con- 
vergence in this, that unto the Christian begotten again εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν, the 
σωτηρία 15 appointed as the τέλος τῆς πίστεως (similarly Briickner). — ἀναζωσά- 
μενοι τὰς ὀσφύας, a figurative expression taken from the runners (and others) 
who tucked up their dress, so as to prosecute their work with less hinderance. 
ἀναζώννυμι, ἅπ. 2εγ. (Prov. xxxi. 17; LXX., ed. Van Ess, xxix. 17), means to 
tuck up; Luther, incorrectly: “therefore so gird yourselves” (thus Wie- 
singer also translates, although he justly says: “The figure taken from the 
tucking up of a long undergarment denotes preparedness for something,”’ 


αὐτά. 


1 The Vulg. translates εἰς a by “ἴῃ quem” 
(i.e., in Spiritum sanctum). 

2 Irenaeus, C. Huer. iv. 67; Oecumenius: 
ὧν τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ ἔκβασιν καὶ αὐτοι οἱ ἄγγελοι 
ἐπεθύμησαν. 

3 Although Hofmann may not be wrong in 
asserting that παρακύπτειν is used also to de- 
note a cursory glance at any thing (cf. Dem. 
ἦν. 24, in Pape, s.v.), yet, in connection with 
eis, it is chiefly employed in cases: where a 
more accurate knowledge is implied; precisely 


as Pape also interprets παρακύπτειν, ‘to stand 
beside a thing, and to bend down so as to see 
it more distinctly;” cf. further, Ecclus. xxi. 
23 (xiv. 23), and in the N.’T. besides, Jas. i. 
25, also John xx. 11 (Luke xxiv. 12; John 
xx. 5). 

4 Beza: ‘“alludit Ap. ad duos illos Cheru- 
bim opercula Arcae ΒΕΊΒΕΘΏΕΡΗΣ conversis in 
ipsam arcam oculis.” Piscator: ‘‘ videtur 
respicere ad Cherubim super arcam foederis, 
tanquam ad typum.” 


CHAP. I. 13. 225 


ete.) ; ef. the passages, Luke xii. 385 and Eph. vi. 14 (in both passages, how- 
ever, περιζώννυμι). The figure is the more appropriate, that the Christian is 

a παρεπίδημος, On his way to the future κληρονομία. The figurative τὰς ὀσφύας 
finds its own explanation in the epexegetical genitive τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν. 
Aretius interprets incorrectly : lumbi mentis, i.e., ipsa recta ratio renati hominis 
recle judicans de negotio pietatis; διάνοια means here, as in Col. i. 21, the 
“disposition of mind.” The meaning of the phrase applies not only to 
deliverance from evil desires,! but to all and every needful preparation 
of spirit for the fulfilling of the exhortations following; “it is the figure of 
spiritual preparedness and activity” (De Wette). The aorist participl 
points to this spiritual preparedness as the preliminary condition of τοὐπὶ 
(Schott). — νήφοντες]. Cf. chap. iv. 7, ν. 8 (1 Thess. v. 6,8; 2 Tim. iv. 5). 
Calvin, correctly: non temperantiam solum in cibo et potu commendat, sed spiri- 
tualem potius sobrielatem, quum sensus omnes nostros continemus, ne se hujus 
mundi illecebris inebrient; similarly most interpreters. Otherwise, however, 
Weiss (Ὁ. 95 f.), who supposes an antithesis between ἀναζωσάμενοι and νήφοντες, 
inasmuch as the former is opposed “to want of courage and apathy,” the 
latter to “unnatural overstraining and excitement,” and “ unhealthy exalta- 
tion.” But no such antithetical relation is (as little as there is in chap. v. 8 
and 1 Thess. v. 6, 8, between γρηγορεῖν and νήφειν) here anywhere hinted at, 
nor is there any thing in the whole epistle to lead us to suppose that Peter 
considered it necessary “to warn his hearers against the extravagant enthu- 
siasm of a Messianic glory.” Rather in νήφοντες is prominence given to an \ 
important element in the ἀναζώσασθαι, without which a τελείως ἐλπίζειν cannot } 
exist, namely, the clearness and soberness of mind with which the goal of ) 
hope, and the» way leading thither, is kept in view. —redeiwe ἐλπίσατε ἐπὶ tiv | 
φερομένην, κ.τ.}.1. τελείως, ἅπ. Aey., belongs not to νήφοντες (Oecumenius, Ben- | 
son, Semler, Mayerhoff, Hofmann), but to ἐλπίσατε; 3 it shows emphatically 
that the hope should be perfect, undivided, unchangeable (“ without doubt 
or faint-heartedness, with full surrender of soul” (De Wette); Wiesinger 
adds further: “excluding all ungodly substance and worldly desire, and 
including the μὴ cvoynuar., ver. 14;” and Schott: “with reference also to 
the moral conduct of earnest sanctification”). Weiss (p. 93) finds the 
τελειότης Of hope in this, that it does not allow itself to be overcome by suffer- 
ing — but of suffering there is here no mention. Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, 
take it unsatisfactorily, only ratione temporis, i.e., “ ad finem usque.” — ἐλπίζειν, 
frequently with εἰς, ἐν, ἐπί, ὁ. dat., is construed with ἐπί cum accus. only 
here and in 1 Tim. v. 5; it means “to place his hope on something.” The 
object connected with it by means ot ἐπί is not the proper object of hope; 
the latter stands in the accusative, or is expressed by a verb, either in the 
infin. or with ὅτε; but it is that from which the fulfilment of hope is ex- 
pected.* If, as here, ἐπί be construed with the accusative, the disposition 


1 Gerhard: ‘‘Quairumvis passionum et cu- ening of this expression by τελείως is entirely 
piditatum carnalium refrenatio praescribitur.” appropriate, whilst νήφοντες requires no such _ 
* The reasons which Hofmann brings for- support. The position of the word, too, is in~ 
ward for the combination of θἧτελείως with favor of the connection with ἐλπίσατε. 
νήφοντες are not by any means conclusive; for 3 The expression “ to hope for something,” 


as the chief accent lies cn ἐλπίσατε, ἃ strength. confidently to expect it, may lead to the sup-. 


220 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

of mind with respect to the object is expressed; whilst if it be taken with 
the dative, the object is presented to us as the basis of hope, that on which 
it is founded. —éni τὴν φερομένην ὑμῖν χάριν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ino. Χριστοῦ]. Several 
commentators interpret so that the sense runs: “place your hope on the 
grace which has been shown you by the revelation of Jesus Christ;” thus 
Erasmus, Luther, Calov, Bengel, Gerhard, Steiger, etc.; according to this, 
φερομένην is the ἀντίστροφον Of κομίζεσθαι (i-e., “ which has been already offered 
or communicated to you”), χάρις, “the forgiveness of sins effected by Christ,” 
and ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “the revelation of Christ which has already 
taken place.” In the more exact definition of the term ἀποκάλυψις, these 
interpreters again diverge from one another; whilst Luther, Calov, Steiger, 
and others hold it to be “the revelation which has taken place in the gos- 
pel;” Bengel, etc., on the other hand, understand it of “the incarnation of 
Christ. \Erasmus gives both: sentit de mysterio evangelii divulgato per quod 
eas seu de adventu Christi. Steiger, in support of the first view, 
appeals to Luke ii. 82; Rom. xvi. 25; Gal. i. 16; Eph. i. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 1; 
Eph. iii. 8; but all these passages do not furnish the proof desired. In no 
passage is the revelation of the gospel called the ἀποκάλυψις ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
But the other view is opposed by the N. T. usus loquendi, according to which 
ἀποκ. always denotes the future coming of Christ only. It must also be held 
to be unwarrantable to interpret ἐν ἀποκ. ’Ijo. Xp, here in a different sense 
from that given shortly before in ver. 7 (and chap. iv. 13).— Not less 
opposed to the former interpretation is the present participle φερομένην, since 
the present may not arbitrarily be taken in the sense of the preterite, but 
“must be looked upon as a realization of the future. Steiger is no doubt 
right in holding that ἡ gep. iu. χάρις “ does not speak of the object of hoping, 
but the ground on which hope is built.” But from this it does not follow 
that by the phrase “something already accomplished” must be understood, 
for why should the Christian not be able to set his hopes of salvation on the 
grace which in the future will be offered to him at and with the return of 
Christ? Piscator incorrectly explains χάρις : coelestis felicitas et gloria, quam 
Deus nobis ex gratia daturus est. Aretius, again, is right: benevolentia Dei, 
qua nos amplectitur in filio: the grace of God from which the Christian has 
to expect the coelestis felicitas. — With φερομένην, cf. Heb. ix. 16. φέρειν : “to 
bring, to present” (not “to bring nearer,” Schott), points here to the free grace 
of God. That is, then: “place your hope on the grace which will be brought to 
you at (in and with) the revelation (the second coming) of Christ.” It is rightly 
interpreted by Oecumenius, Calvin (who errs in this only, that he takes év 
for εἰς, i.e., usque ad adventum Christi), Beza, Grotius, Estius, Semler, Pott, 
De Wette, etc. 


position that this meaning is expressed by 
ἐλπίζειν ἐπί τι. In the N. T. this is usually 
rendered by ἀπεκδέχεσθαι. Even in the con- 
struction with eis the thing accompanying it is 
not the object of hope, cf. John v. 45; 2 Cor. 
i. 10; only in EKcclus. ii. 9 is the object of 
ἐλπίζειν construed with eis (ἐλπέσατε cis ἀγαθὰ 
καὶ εἰς εὐφροσύνην). Hofmann wrongly at- 


taches importance to whether εἰς is followed 
by a person or a thing, asserting that in the 
latter case the thing is the object; for it is 
quite as possible to set one’s hope on a thing 
as on a person. Cremer rightly quotes this 
passage as one of those in which ἐλπίζειν has 
the meaning of “‘settig one’s hope on some- 
thing.” 


CHAP. I. 14. 227 


REMARK. — The more recent interpreters take up different positions with 
respect to the view here presented. Wiesinger, Briickner, Schott, Fronmiiller, 
Hofmann, agree with the interpretation of ἀποκάλυψις, but are opposed to that 
of ἐλπίζειν ἐπὶ. Weiss and Zoéckler (De vi ac notione voc. ἐλπίς in N. T., 1856, 
p. 15 ff.), on the other hand, are against the latter, but in favor of the former. 
—As regards ἐλπίζ,, Zockler: Ea est vis praepositionis ἐπί c. acc. constructae, 
ut finem designet s. localem s. temporalem s. causalem, in quem tendat actus 
verbi. Qui tamen finis s. terminus sperandi ita discernendus est a simplici 
OBJECTO sperandi, ut hoc significet rem, quam sibi obtingere speret subjectum, 
Jinis vero ille simul auctor sit, e quo pendeat vel satisfacere votis sperantis, vel 
deesse ;1 in support of which he justly quotes, in addition to this verse, 1 Tim. 
v. 5 (to which Wiesinger appeals without any justification), and a not inconsid- 
erable number of passages from the LXX.; cf. Weiss also (p. 36 f.). De Wette 
interprets ἐλπίζειν correctly, but thinks, that, inasmuch as the σωτηρία is con- 
ceived as a χάρις, it is at once the ground and the object of the hope. With this 
Briickner agrees, finding, ‘‘in this intermingling, a part of the peculiarity of 
the thought;’’ whilst, on the other hand, Weiss sees in it only a makeshift 
conveying no clear idea at all. With regard to the term ἀποκάλυψις, Weiss 
explains it as: manifestatio Christi, quae fit in verbo evangelii in hac vita 
(Gerhard). But this interpretation is decidedly opposed to the N. T. usage; in 
no passage is the revelation of which, by the gospel, we become partakers 
described as an ἀποκάλυψις ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, although ἀποκαλύπτειν is used of the 
different kinds of revealing. The reference to the gospel is an evident importa- 
tion. Weiss raises two objections to the correct view —(1) ‘‘ It is, as a matter 
of fact, impossible that the Christian should set his hope on the grace that is to 
be brought at the revelation of Christ.’? But why should this be impossible ὃ 
How often does it happen that the individual bases his hope for the fulfilment 
of his wish on an event as yet future, but which he is assured will happen! 
(2) ‘* That the second coming of Christ is not a revelation of grace at all, but of 
just judgment.”’ But the latter in no way excludes the former; and how could 
the Christian contemplate the second coming of Christ with calm, yes, even 
with joy, if there were no grace ? 


Ver. 14. Second exhortation (extending to ver. 21). — ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς 
does not belong to what precedes (Hofmann), but serves to introduce the 
new exhortation.2—dé¢ does not here introduce a comparison (as ii. 2, 5, 
iii. 7), but marks the essential quality of the subject. Lorinus correctly 
remarks on ii. 14: constat hujusmodi particulas saepe nihil minuere, sed rei 
veritatem magis exprimere ; it corresponds to our “as,” i.e., as becomes you 
who should be τέκνα ὑπακοῆς. ---- ὑπακοῆ is used here as absolutely as in ver. 2, 
and has the same signification as there. The spirit which pervades the life 
of believers is the spirit of obedience, and therefore they should be τέκνα 
ὑπακοῆς. According to the analogy of similar compounds in the N. T., as 
τέκνα φωτύς, Eph. v. 8; its opposite, τέκνα κατάρας, 2 Pet. ii. 143 τέκνα τῆς ὀργῆς; 


1 This interpretation is correct. 
point under dispute is “ simul.” 


The only by the correspondence which exists between 


τέκνα ὑπακοῆς and the subsequent exhorta- 


2 Hofmann connects not only these words, 
but the subsequent participial clause also: μὴ 
συσχηματιζόμενοι, κ. τ. A., With what precedes. 
This, however, is opposed, on the one hand, 


tions; and, on the other hand, by ἀλλά, ver. 
15, which is in antithesis to μὴ συσχηματιζό- 
μενοι, and therefore not to be separated from 
it, as though it commenced a new paragraph. 


228 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
Eph. ii. 3; particularly υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπειθείας, Eph. ii. 2,—-the expression τέκνα 
ὑπακοῆς May be explained so as that τέκνα shall denote only the relation in 
which the persons in question stand to the idea of the accompanying geni- 
tive; cf. Winer, p. 223 f. (E. T., 238); Buttmann, p. 141; Meyer on Eph. 
ii. 2 (thus Grotius, Jachinann, ete.; Fronmiiller too). De Wette, Briickner, 
Schott, Weiss, too, most probably, p. 172, take τέκνα as the “children of 
God,” and ὑπακοῆς as the genitive of character (as Luke xvi. 8: ὁ οἰκόνομος τῆς 
ἀδικίας; XViil. 6: ὁ κρίτης τῆς ἀδικίας). But as it is in ver. 17 that mention 
is first made of the sonship relation of the Christian, it remains at least 
doubtful whether the apostle had in this expression that relation in view; 
at any rate the emphasis here lies not on τέκνα, but on ὑπακοῆς. --- μὴ συσχηματι- 
ζόμενο]. μῆ occurs here on account of the imperative cast of the whole sen- 
tence. Neither γενήθητε (Bengel) nor any other similar word is to be supplied 
to the part., inasmuch as it does not correspond to the ἅγιοι γενήῆθητε, but to 
the κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον (Wiesinger); there is here no “departure 
from the construction” (De Wette). The word συσχηματίζεσθαι, occurring in 
the N. T. only here and in Rom. xii. 2, and nowhere but in later Greek, 
means: “to form his σχῆμα like that of another ;” 1 it has reference not to the 
outward conduct merely, but to the whole outward and inward conformation 
of life, as the connection with the following words shows: ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ 
ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις. The ἐπιθυμίαι, i.e., the sinful desires (not “the satisfied 
lusts, or a life of pleasure,” as De Wette understands), which formerly held 
sway in them, are the σχῆμα, according to which they are not to fashion 
themselves in their new life.?- Luther’s translation is inexact: “take not 
up your former position, when ye in your ignorance lived according to your 
lusts.’’ The ἐπιθυμίαι are more precisely characterized as formerly belonging 
to them ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ; ἐν specifies not merely the time (Calvin: tempus ignorantiae 
vocal, antequam in fidem Christi vocati essent), but likewise the origin (Wie- 
singer). ἄγνοια is used here as in Acts xvii. 30, Eph. iv. 18, ignorance in 
divine things, and is to be understood, if not exactly of idolatry, at least of 
heathenism, which is far from the knowledge of the living God and of His 
will. Paul, in Rom. i. 18 ff., shows how the obscuring of the consciousness 
of God is the source of moral corruption. 


REMARK. — In answer to Weiss, who can see in this passage no proof that 
the readers were Gentile Christians, Wiesinger justly remarks, Schott and 
Briickner agreeing with him: ‘‘The ἄγνοια of which the Jews (Acts iii. 17; 
Rom. x. 3) are accused, or which Paul attributes to himself, 1 Tim. i. 13 (the 
same applies to Luke xxiii. 34; John viii. 19), is of quite a different kind; not 


2 Schott terms this in- 


1 When, in objection to this, Hofmann urges 
that συσχηματίζεσθαι should here be inter- 
preted not according to Rom. xii. 2, but on the 
principle of the expression, συσχ. τοῖς λεγομε- 
νοις, —‘**so to conduct one’s self as to give 
adequate expression to the words used,” — he 
does not consider that in this verse the verb 
has the same force as in Rom. xii. 2, for it 
means, ‘‘ to conform your σχῆμα to that which 
your words express.” 


interpretation 
exact;” for “it is not the lusts themselves, but 
the mode of life which is essentially charac- 
terized by these lusts, according to which they 
are not to fashion themselves; ”’? but does then 
ἐπιθυμίαι mean ‘ the mode of life”? Besides, 
Schott himself says that the thought is not 
altogether correctly expressed. 


/ CHAP. I. 15, 16. 229 


an ἄγνοια of the moral demands of the law, but the misapprehension of the 
purpose of salvation manifesting itself also through the law.’’ If Weiss, on 
the other hand, insists (Die Petr. Frage, p. 624) that the invectives of Christ 
most plainly teach how, in the Jewish conception of the law, at that time its 
deeper moral demands were misapprehended; it must, as opposed to him, be 
observed that Christ’s attack was specially directed against the Pharisaic con- 
ception of it, and can in no way be applied to the people of Israel as such. 
Paul, in describing them, expressly allows to the Jews, Rom. ii. 17 ff., the 
γινώσκειν τὸ θέλημα; and an ἄγνοια, in the absolute sense here implied, is nowhere 
cast up to them.— The O. T. distinction between ‘sins of weakness (713, 
LXX.: kar’ ἄγνοιαν, ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ) and insolent sins of disobedience” (197 7:3) 
(Weiss, p. 175) does not apply here. 


Vv. 15,16. ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον]. Steiger: “this positive 
instruction, instead of forming a participial clause of its own, like the pre- 
ceding (negative), is in animated discourse at once merged into the principal 
clause;” there is, accordingly, nothing to be supplied; still Oecumenius 
explains, in sense, correctly: ἀλλὰ viv γοῦν, λέγει, TH καλέσαντι συσχηματιζόμενοι, 
ἁγίῳ ὄντι, x.7.2,—Gyov is here a substantive, to which the participle καλ. is 
added as nearer definition (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 1), and that by way of strengthen- 
ing the exhortation (“as ye are bound to do, since He hath called you”). 
The behavior of those called must correspoud with the nature of Him who 
has called them. Schott rightly remarks that the καλεῖν must here be taken 
as “an effectual calling,” by which the readers are delivered from their state 
of estrangement from God, and introduced into one of fellowship with Him. 
καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε]. καὶ αὐτοί forms the antithesis to τὸν 
ἅγιον ; Schott, incorrectly: “as against what God has, on His part, by His 
calling, done to you and made you.” — ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ, not: in (your) whole 
(De Wette), but in (your) every walk.1— γενήθητε denotes not the becoming, 
but the being ; Luther, correctly: “like Him. . . be ye also holy.?” — Ver. 16, 
διότι γέγραπται]. διότι, 1.€., διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι, “for this reason because,” indicates the 
reason for the preceding exhortation, and not simply for the use of the word 
ἅγιον (De Wette). The apostle goes back to the command given to Israel, as 
to the reason why the Christians, called as they were by the God of holiness, 
should be holy in their every walk. The holiness of God laid Israel under 
the obligation to be holy, since God had chosen them to be His people; the 
same is the case, as Peter suggests by καλέσαντα iudc, with the N. T. 
church of believers, the true Israel, on whom, though doubtless in a form 
adapted to them, for this reason the commandments of the O. C. are still 
binding. Schott justly observes that the passage quoted by Peter is not 


1 For it must be observed that in the case of 2 Wiesinger asks why? The reasons are, 


a collective expression, πᾶς is accompanied by 
the article when the totality is conceived of as 
forming one whole; the article is wanting 
when it is considered as composed of many; 
€. 9+, πᾶς ὃ λαός means ‘*the whole people,” 
but πᾶς λαός, “all people; ᾿ when not ‘ every 
people,” in which case the collective expres- 
sion is the special idea. 


(1) because both in the LXX. and Apocrypha 
of the O. T., as also in the N. T., instead of 
the imper. of εἶναι, which is but rarely used, 
there is very generally the imper. aorist of 
γίγνομαι, in the .XX. translation of mir, 31 
(cf. specially Ps. Ixix. 26); (2) because the 
exhortation ‘be holy * is more suited to the 
condition of Christians than ‘‘ become holy.” 


230 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


meant to establish the duty of holiness in itself, but to show that the fact of 
belonging to God involves as a matter of duty the necessity of a holy walk. 
The expression, which the apostle quotes, occurs more than once in the book 
of Leviticus, xi. 44, xix. 2, xx. 7, 26. 

Ver. 17. From here to the end of the verse the preceding exhortation is 
continued; the connection is shown by the copula καί. -- καὶ εἰ πατέρα ἐπικα- 
λεῖσθε, corresponding to the ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, ver. 14. εἰ is here: “ particula 
non conditionalis, sed assertiva, non dubitantis, sed rem notam praesupponentis”’ 
(Calvin). The form of the sentence is, however, hypothetical; the sense 
is: “if you act thus and thus, as ye are indeed now doing.” By this form the 
language is made more impressive than it would have been by a simple 
causative particle. — ἐπικαλεῖσθαι, as medium, means to “call upon” (for the 
meaning “to name,” as Wiesinger, De Wette, Briickner take it, is supported 
in the classics only by a doubtful passage in Dio Cass. lxxvii. 7). πατέρα is 
the accusative of more precise definition (thus Hofmann also); Luther: 
“since ye call on Him the (i-e., as, ὡς) Father.” The sense is: “if ye look 
on Him as Father who, etc., and ye acknowledge yourselves as His children.”’4 
It is to be noticed that the ἐπικαλεῖσθε corresponds to the καλέσαντα, v. 15; 
God has called believers, —and they answer with the call to Him, in which 
they name Him Father. This mutual relationship lays the Christians under 
obligations to be holy as He is holy.2— rdv ἀπροσωπολήπτως κρίνοντα Td ἑκάστου 
épyov, a circumlocution for God full of significance, instead of the simple 
τὸν Θεόν, corresponding to the ἅγιον, ver. 18. --- ἀπροσωπολήπτως, a an. Aey., 
formed on the noun προσωπολήπτης (Acts x. 34), which is composed of πρόσωπον 
and λαμβάνειν ; see Meyer on Gal. ii. 6. — The present κρίνοντα indicates that 
impartial judgment is a characteristic function of God. The apostle men- 
tions τὸ ἔργον as that according to which the judgment of God is determined; 
in this connection the plural is generally found (Rom. ii. 6); by the singular 
the whole conduct of man (outwardly and inwardly) is conceived as a work 
of his life. — ἑκάστου, not without emphasis. It implies that the Christian 
also—a son of God though he be — will, like all others, be judged accord- 
ing to his work; it is arbitrary to limit the application of the general term 
ἑκάστου to Christians only (Schott); there is no thought here of the distine- 
tion between Jew and Gentile (Bengel). —The term judge, as applied to 
God, stands in a peculiar contrast to πατέρα. The Christian, while conscious 
of the love of God shed abroad in his heart (Rom. v. 5), must still never 
forget that God judges the evil, that His love is a holy love, and that sonship 
involves obligation of obedience towards a just God. — ἐν φύβῳ τὸν... ἀνασ- 
τράφητε, Corresponding to the ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενῆθητε, ver. 15; the feel- 
ing which harmonizes with the thought of the impartial judge is the φόβος; 
thus Peter places φόβος first by way of emphasis. φόβος is here, indeed, not 
the slavish fear which cannot co-exist with love (see 1 John iv. 18), no more 


1 Τὸ is possible, and as Gerhard and Weiss in the preceding verses; but here it is not 
(Ρ. 1172) think probable, that Peter here alludes considered as established by God, but as real- 
to the Lord’s Prayer. ized in practice by the readers, 7.e., as sub- 

2 Schott rightly remarks that ἐπικαλεῖσθαι jectively known and acknowledged by them. 
is based on the same common relationship as 


CHAP. I. 18. 9591 


is it the reverence which an inferior feels for a superior (Grotius, Bolten, etc.); 
but it is the holy awe of a judge who condemns the evil; the opposite of 
thoughtless security. Calvin: timor securitati opponitur; cf. chap. ii. 17; 
2 Cor. vii. 1; Phil. ii. 12.1— τὸν τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνον specifies the dura- 
tion of the walk ἐν φόβῳ; παροικία : “the sojourn in a foreign country ;” in its 
strict sense, Acts xiii. 17 (Ezra viii. 84, LX-X.); here applied to the earthly 
life of the Christian, inasmuch as their κληρονομία is in heaven, ver. 4: This 
expression serves to give point to the exhortation expressed, hinting as it 
does at the possibility of coming short of the home; ef. chap. ii. 11. 

Ver. 18. The apostle strengthens his exhortation by reminding his 
readers of the redemption wrought out for them by the death of Christ. It 
is an assumption too far-fetched to suppose that this verse serves to show 
“the causal connection between the protasis and the apodosis of ver. 17” 
(Schott). — εἰδότες, not “since ye know,” but “considering,” “reflecting; ” 
Gerhard: expendentes ; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 23 and my commentary on the passage. 
— ὅτι ob]. The negation is placed foremost in order the more to give promi- 
nence to the position. — φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ]. φθαρτοῖς is not an adjective 
here (Luther: “with perishable silver and gold”), but a substantive: “with 
perishable things ;” see Winer, p. 491 (E. T., 527). — Benson thinks that by 
ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ the apostle alludes to the custom of paying money as a sign 
of reconciliation, according to Exod. xxx. 12-16; Num. iii. 44-51, xviii. 16; 
this is possible, but not probable. — ἐλυτρώθητε is here used in its strict signi- 
fication of, to ransom, or redeem by a λύτρον (cf. Matt. xx. 28), as in Tit. 
ii. 14, whilst in Luke xxiy. 21 this definite application is lost sight of; 
with the thought, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The ransom is stated in the follow- 
ing verse. —é τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ὀναστροφῆς]. Cf. ver. 14. μάταιος, “ empty, 
without real contents,’ does not occur in an ethical sense in the classics; 
LXX. Isa. xxxii. 6 translation of [Ἰδὲ is not to be limited specially to the 
idolatry of the heathen (Carpzov, Benson, etc.), still less to the ceremonial 
service of the Jews (Grotius).2— πατροπαραδότου belongs to the whole idea 
preceding: ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς (see Winer, p. 489 [E. T., 525]). Aretius 
explains it by innata nobis natura; but this is not appropriate to ἀναστροφῆς; 
correctly, Erasmus: quam ex Patrum traditione acceperatis; Steiger: “by 
upbringing, instruction, and example” (thus also De Wette-Briickner, 
Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott). This attribute emphatically shows that the 
ματαία ἀναστροφῆ is peculiar, not to the individual only, but to the whole race, 
and has been from the earliest times, and consequently is so completely 


1 Weiss (p. 170) thinks that the passage, 
Rom. viii. 15, proves Paul’s fundamental views 
of Christian life to have been different from 
those of Peter; this opinion, however, is suf- 
ficiently contradicted. by Weiss himself, who 
admits that in 2 Cor. vii. 1, ‘* Paul mentions 
the fear of God as a peculiar mark of the 
Christian’s life, and that he often speaks of a 
fear of Christ.”” —Schott insists, in the first 
place, that φόβος be understood absolutely 
(without special reference to God as the judge) 


as the consciousness of liability to err, but 
afterwards more precisely defines the expres- 
sion as that fear which is anxious that nothing 
should happen which might cause God, as the 
righteous judge, to refuse the inheritance to 
him who hopes to attain it. 

2 Although ματαία ἀναστροφὴ πατροπαρά- 
Soros does not necessarily apply to the heathen 
(Schott), yet the expression more aptly charac- 
terizes their mode of life than the Jewish. 


232 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
master of the individual that he cannot free himself from it. — There is 
here no “special reference to Judaeo-Christian readers” (Weiss, p. 181). 
Ver. 19. ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματῆ. τιμίῳ forms the antithesis to ¢#aproic, in so far 
as the perishable is destitute of true worth. — αἵματι refers not only to the 
death, but to the bloody death, of Christ; cf. Heb. ix. 22.—6é¢.. . duro 
ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ]. ὡς... ἀσπίλου is in antecedent apposition to 
Χριστοῦ (Wiesinger, De Wette-Briickner), as in chap. 111. 7, where likewise 
ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει iS in similar apposition to τῷ γυναικείῳ (sc. σκεύει). It is 
incorrect to supply, with Steiger, Schott, and others, “ αἵματι before ἀμνοῦ, 
taking Χριστοῦ either as an explanatory adjunct (Steiger), or connecting it 
directly with αἵματι (Schott, Hofmann). — dc is also here not merely com- 
parative, as, among others, Schott and Hofmann hold, maintaining that “ by 
ἀμνοῦ only an actual lamb is meant,” but it emphasizes that Christ is a blame- 
less and spotless lamb (Gerhard, De Wette-Briickner).1— ἀμνός is, as Briick- 
ner also assumes, to be understood of a sacrificial lamb. This is clear both 
from the connection — since the ransom by the aiva of Christ (Lev. xvii. 11) 
is here in question—and from the attributes ἄμωμος and ἄσπιλος, of which 
the former is used in the O. T. expressly to denote the faultlessness of 
animals taken for sacrifice (ὉΠ, LXX.: duwuoc), — to this class lambs also 
belonged. The precise designation, a lamb, was probably suggested to Peter 
by Isa. liii. 7 (cf. chap. ii. 22 ff.); from this it must not, however, be inferred, 
with Weiss (p. 227 ff.) and Schott, that there is nowhere here any reference 
to the idea of sacrifice. For although the passage in Isaiah compares the 
servant of God to a lamb simply on account of the patience he exhibited in 
the midst of his sufferings, still it is based so wholly on the idea of sacrifice, 
and the sufferings of Christ are so expressly presented as propitiatory, that 
it is easily explainable how, with this passage applied to Him, Christ could 
have been thought of precisely as a sacrificial lamb. Doubtless it is not 
Peter’s intention to give special prominence to the fact that Christ is the 
sacrificial lamb designated by Isaiah’s prophecy; for in that case the definite 
article would not have been wanting (cf. John i. 29, and Meyer in loc.); but 
alluding to the above passage, Peter styles Him generally a lamb, — which, 
however, he conceives as a sacrificial lamb. There is no direct allusion 
(Wiesinger) here to the paschal lamb (De Wette-Briickner, Schott); the 
want of the article forbids it. Hofmann, though he has justly recognized 
this, still firmly holds by the reference to the paschal lamb; only in thus 
far, however, that he terms the slaying of it “the occurrence” which “ was 
here present to the apostle’s mind.”? But the fact that the blood of this 


1 Tf ὡς be taken as instituting a comparison, αἵματι. The apostle would in some way have 


there then arises the singular thought, that the 
blood of Christ is as precious as that of a lamb 
without blemish. Hofmann, indeed, avoids 
this conclusion by supplying to ws not τιμίῳ 
αἵματι, but αἵματι only, and observes that the 
shedding of blood alone (not the shedding of 
precious blood) is compared to the slaying of 
a spotless lamb; but there is not the slightest 
justification for thus separating τιμίῳ from 


indicated it by prefixing at least a simple 
αἵματι tO ἀμνοῦ. 

2 Hofmann says: “The meaning is not 
that the same was done to Christ as to the 
paschal lamb, but the recollection of the pas- 
chal lamb explains only how Peter came to 
compare the shedding of Christ’s blood with 
the shedding of the blood of a spotless lamb.” 
— As to whether the paschal lamb should be 


CHAPS I, 20. 253 
lamb did not serve to ransom Israel out’ of Egypt, but to preserve them from 
the destroying angel, is opposed to any such allusion. Further, it must not 
be left unnoticed that in the N. T. the paschal lamb is always styled τὸ πάσχα; 
and in the passage treating of it in Exod. xii. in the LXX., the expression 
πρόβατον only, and never ἀμνός, is employed. — The adjunct: ὡς. . . ἀσπίλου, 
serves to specify particularly the blood of Christ as sacrificial, and not merely 
to give a nearer definition of its preciousness (the τίμιον), inasmuch as, “ ac- 
cording to Petrine conceptions, it is precisely the innocence (denoted here 
by the two attributes) and the patience (conveyed by duvéc) which give to the 
suffering its τιμῇ" (as opposed to Weiss, p. 281 f.). The preciousness of 
the blood lies in this, that it is the blood of Christ; its redemptive power 
in this, that He shed it as a sacrificial lamb without blemish and fault.1 — With 
ἄμωμος, cf. in addition to Lev. xxii. 18 ff., especially Heb. ix. 14. — ἀσπιλος 
is not to be found in the LXX., and in the N. T. only metaphorically; the 
two expressions here conjoined are a reproduction of the 8? p-92 ODA 
ia“, Lev. xxii. 18 ff. (Wiesinger). All the commentators construe 
Χριστοῦ With what precedes, Hofmann only excepted, who separates it there- 
from, and connects it with what follows, taking Χριστοῦ προεγνωσμένου, k.7.A., a8 
an absolute genitive (i.e., “in that... Christ . . . was foreordained,” etc.). 
But this construction does not specify by whose blood the redemption was 
accomplished, nor does it give a clear logical connection between the thought 
of the participial and that of the principal clause. 


REMARK. —It must be observed, that whilst the power of propitiation, i.e., 
of blotting out sin, is attributed to the blood of the sacrifice, Lev. xvi. 11, the 
blood of Christ is here specified as the means by which we are redeemed from 
the ματαία ἀναστροφῆ. From this, it must not be concluded, with Weiss (p. 279), 
that the blood of Christ is not regarded here as the blood of offering, inasmuch 
ἐς as the sacrifice can have an expiatory, but not a redemptory, worth;”’ for the 
two are in no way opposed to each other. The expiation is nothing different 
from the redemption, i.e., ransom from the guilt by the blood freely shed. The 
redemption, however, which is here spoken of, though, doubtless, not identical 
with expiation, is yet a necessary condition of it,—a circumstance which 
Pfleiderer also fails to observe, when he says that the passage has reference 
only ‘to the putting away of a life of sin, to moral improvement, not to 
expiation of the guilt of sin.” 


Ver. 20. προεγνωσμένου μέν is indeed not simply and at once prueordinatus 
(Beza), but the foreknowledge of God is, with respect to the salvation He 
was to bring about, essentially a providing; cf. ver. 2: πρόγνωσις. In regard 
to Christ it was provided (προεγνωσμένου refers not directly to ἀμνοῦ, but to 


considered as a sacrificial lamb (Keil on Gen. 
xii.) or not, is a matter of dispute, which 
cannot be decided here. 

1 Schott, in opposition to this, asserts: 
‘This blood can redeem because it is that of 
the divine Mediator (Χριστός), but it is valu- 
able in that it is the blood of an innocent 


Saint.” This is, however, erroneous, since 
this blood has power to redeem only, because 
Christ shed it as a sacrifice for propitiation. 
But it is not clear why this blood should not 
even have its full worth from the fact that it is 
the blood of the Mediator. 


234 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. . 


Χριστοῦ) that He should appear (φανερωθέντος dé) as a sacrificial lamb to 
redeem the world by His blood. The passage does not say that Christ 
would have appeared even though sin had never entered. — πρὸ καταβολῆς 
κόσμου, a frequent designation of antemundane eternity, John xvii. 24; Eph. 
i. 4. This nearer definition specifies the sending of Christ as haying origi- 
nated in the eternal counsels of God, in order thus to give point to the 
exhortation contained in ver. 17. — φανερωθέντος δέ here of the first appearing 
of Christ, which in this passage is represented as an emerging from the 
obscurity in which He was (chap. v. 4, of His second coming); it is incor- 
rect to refer φανερωθέντος to the obscurity of the divine counsels (as formerly 
in this commentary), since φανερωθέντος applies as much as προεγνωσμένου to 
the person of Christ. Between the πρόγνωσις and the φανέρωσις lies the προ- 
φητεία, ver. 10. Rightly interpreted, φανερωθέντος testifies to the pre-existence 
of Christ.1 The sequence of the aorist participle on the participle προεγνωσ- 
μένου is to be explained from this, that by φανερωθέντος an historical fact is 
mentioned. — én’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων]. ἔσχατον: a substantival use of it, “at the 
end of the times.” This ἔσχατον of the times is here conceived as the whole 
period extending from the first appearance of Christ to His second coming; 
in like manner Heb. i. 1; otherwise 2 Pet. iii. 3, where by ἔσχατον is meant 
the time as yet future, immediately preceding the second coming of Christ; 
in like manner 1 Pet. i. 5.2 Note the antithesis: πρὸ καταβ. x. and ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου 
t.xp-: beginning and end united in Christ. —v’ ὑμᾶς refers in the first in- 
stance to the readers, but embraces at the same time all ἐκλεκτοί. Believers 
are the aim of all God’s schemes of salvation; what an appeal to them to 
walk ἐν φόβῳ τὸν τῆς παροικίας ypovov! There is as little here to indicate any 
reference to the heathen (Hofmann) as there was 11) εἰς ὑμᾶς, ver. 10. 

Ver. 21. τοὺς δι’ αὐτοῦ (i.e., Χριστοῦ) πιστεύοντας (Or πιστοὺς) εἰς Θεό». τούς : 
the same clausal connection as in vv. 4 and 5.— The construction πιστεύειν 
εἰς is very frequent in the N. T., especially in John; Christ is for the most 
part named as the object; God, as here, in John xii. 44, xiv. 1.— This 
adjunct, by giving prominence to the fact that the readers are brought to 
faith in God by Christ, confirms the thought previously expressed dv ὑμᾶς.8 
Nor should it ever have been denied that by it the readers may be recog- 
nized as having been heathens formerly. — τὸν éyeipavta αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν 
αὐτῷ dovra,* not subjoined aimlessly as an accidental predicate applied by the 
apostle to God; but, closely linked on to Θεόν, the words serve to describe 


1 Schmid rightly says (Bibl. Theol., ΤΙ. p. 
165): ““προεγνωσμένου does not deny the 
actual pre-existence, because Χριστοῦ includes 
a designation which is not yet realized in the 
actual pre-existence, but will be so only in 
virtue of the φανερωθῆναι." 

2 It is indeed correct that, as Schott says, 
the end of the times is so, through the mani- 
festation of Christ; but it is δὴ arbitrary 
assertion to say that ἐπί serves to give more 
prominence and precision to this thought. 

8 Hofmann: **The assertion that Christ 
was foreordained aud made manifest for their 


sake is actually justified in this, that they 
have faith in God through Him.” 

4 Weiss (p. 243) lays stress on δόντα in 
order to prove the low plane of Peter’s con- 
ception of the person of Christ; yet Christ 
also says, in the Gospel of John, that God had 
given him ζωή, κρίσις, ἐξουσία πάσης σαρκός, 
δόξα, etc. Paul, too, asserts that God exalted 
Christ, and gifted Him (ἐχαρίσατο) with the 
ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα; there is a similar 
passage, too, in Hebrews, that God has ap- 
pointed or made Him κληρόνομος πάντων- 


CHAP. I. 22. 235 


Θεόν more nearly as the object of the Christian faith. The conviction that 
God has raised and glorified Christ the Crucified belongs essentially to the 
Christian faith in God; with the first half of this clause, cf. Rom. iv. 24, 
viii. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 14; Gal. i. 1; with the second, John xvii. 5, 22; and 
with the whole thought, Eph. i. 20; Acts ii. 82 f. This adjunct, defining 
Θεὸν more nearly, is not meant to declare “how far Christ by His revelation 
has produced faith in God” (Wiesinger),— the whole structure of the clause 
is opposed to this, —but what is the faith to which through Christ the 
readers have attained. —dore, not iva (Oecumenius, Luther: “in order 
that; ” thus also the Syr., Vulg., Beza, etc.), nor is it itaque, as if a “dei” or 
a “ χρή" were to be supplied to εἰναι (Aretius) ; but “so that,” it denotes the 
fruit which faith in-God, who raised up.Christ from the dead, has brought 
forth in the readers, which supplies the confirmation that Christ has ap- 
peared for their sake (δι᾽ αὐτούς). ---- τὴν πίστιν ὑμὼν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἷναι εἰς Θεόν]. Most 
interpreters translate: “so that your faith and your hope are directed to 
God;” Weiss, on the other hand (p. 43), Briickner, Schott, Fronmiiller, 
Hofmann, take it: “so that your faith is at the same time hope toward 
God.” The position of the words seems to favor this last translation, since 
the genitive ὑμὼν stands between the two substantives, whilst otherwise 
either ὑμῶν τὴν πίστιν καὶ ἐλπίδα (or τὴν ὑμῶν πίστ.), (cf. Rom. i. 20; Phil. i. 25; 
1 Thess. ii. 12), or τὴν π. x. ἔλπ. ὑμῶν (cf. Phil. i. 20; 1 Thess. iii. 7), would 
have been expected ;— but this is not decisive, inasmuch as in Eph. iii. 5 
τοὶς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοὺ καὶ προφῆταις occurs. Qn the other hand, the con- 
nection of thought gives the preference to the latter view; for, in the former 
case, not only is it noticeable that “the result is exactly the same as that 
denoted by τοὺς πιστούς " (Weiss), but in it ἐλπίδα seems to be nothing more 
than an accidental appendage, whilst in reality it is the point aimed at in 
the whole deduction; that is to say, the truth and livingness of faith (in the 
resurrection and glorification of Christ) are manifested in this, that it is also 
a hope; cf. vv. 3, 6,9, 18.1 Schott is wrong in thinking that εἰς Θεόν has 
reference not only to ἐλπίδα, but at the same time to τὴν πίστιν ; for though 
by πίστις here only πίστις εἰς Θεόν can be understood, yet it is grammatically 
impossible to connect the final εἰς Θεόν, which is closely linked on to ἐλπίδα, 
likewise with τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν. ---- The object of hope is specified in the words 
τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν, x.7.4.; it is the resurrection and attainment of the ddéa 
which is given to Christ; οἵ. Rom. viii. 11, 17. 

Ver. 22. From ver. 22 to ver. 25 the third exhortation,? and its subject 
is love one of another. Gerhard incorrectly joins this verse with verse 17, 
and regards vv. 18-21 as a parenthesis. — τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότε]. The par- 


1 Weiss is wrong in saying that, according 
to Peter’s view, faith is but the preparatory 


sequent idea; yet it must be observed that in 
the N. T. the first combination is more fre- 


step to hope, since it rather includes the latter, 

2 Hofmann, without any suflicient reason, 
supposes the third exhortation to begin with 
ver. 18, although the amplifications contained 
in vy. 18-21 serve eminently to inculcate the 
preceding exhortation, The expression εἰδότες 
can be joined either with a preceding or a sub- 


quent than the second, and that in the latter 
case εἰδότες is always accompanied by a par- 
ticle, by which it is marked as the first word 
of a subsequent set of phrases; Hofmann 
altogether overlooks this. Here undoubtedly 
καί would have been prefixed to εἰδότες, 


280 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

ticiple does not here express the accomplished act as the basis of the exhor- 
tation, as if it were: “after that ye, or since ye, have purified” (Bengel, 
Wiesinger), but it stands closely linked on to the imperative, and denotes 
the duty which must ever be fulfilled (hence the perf.) if the ἀγαπᾶν is to 
be realized (De Wette-Briickner, Schott, Fronmiiller) ;1 Luther, inexactly : 
“make chaste .. . and,” ete. — dyvigew, a religious idea denoting in the first 
instance the outward, and afterwards the inward consecration and sanctify- 
ing also (cf. John xi. 55; Acts xxi. 24, 26, xxiv. 18); in passages too, as 
here, where it expresses moral cleansing from.all impurity (here more espe- 
cially from selfishness), it does not lose its religious significance; cf. Jas. 
iv. 8; 1 John 11]. 8.3 --- ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας]. ἡ ἀλήθεια is the truth re- 
vealed and expressed in the gospel in all its fulness. — ὑπακοῆ, not “ faith” 
(Wiesinger), but “obedience.” The genitive is not the gen. subj.: “the 
obedience which the truth begets,” but the gen. obj.: ‘‘obedience to the 
truth.” This ὑπακοῇ, however, consists in believing what the truth proclaims, 
and in performing what it requires (thus Weiss also). — The preposition ἐν 
exhibits ὑπακοῇ as the element in which the Christian must move in order 
to procure the sanctification of his soul. —If the reading διὰ πνεύματος be 
adopted, the πνεῦμω is not the human spirit, but the Spirit ef God; Luther, 
incorrectly: that the apostle here means to observe that the word of God 
must not only be heard and read, but be laid hold of with the heart. —eic¢ φιλα- 
δελφίαν ἀνυπόκριτον does not belong to the ἀγαπῆσατε following, either as denot- 
ing the terminus of love, and the sense being: diligite vos in fraternam cariatem, 
i.e., in unum corpus fraternae caritatis ; or as διά (Oecumenius), and thus point- 
ing out the “agency by which;” nor, finally, is it ecbatic: ita ut omnibus 
manifestum fiat, vos esse invicem fratres (Gerhard) ;— but it is to be taken in 
conjunction with ἡγνικότες, and specifies the aim towards which the dyvigew 
is to be directed. Sanctification towards love, by the putting away of all 
selfishness, must ever precede love itself. — φιλαδελφία, love of the brethren 
peculiar to Christians: cf. 2 Pet. 1.7; Rom. xii. 9,10; 1 Thess. iv. 9.— 
With ἀνυπόκριτος, cf. 1 John iii. 18, where true unfeigned love is described. — 
ἐκ (καθαρᾶς) καρδίας is not to be joined with what precedes, —it being thus a 
somewhat cumbrous adjunct, — but with what follows, setting forth in relief 
an essential element of love; with the expression ἐκ καρδίας, cf. Rom. vi. 17; 
Matt. xviii. 35 (ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν) ; on the Rec. ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας, see 1 Tim. 


1 Hofmann declares himself opposed to both 
of these interpretations, or rather he seeks to 
unite them after a fashion, by assuming that 
the participial clause partakes of the impera- 
tive tone of the principal clause. He likewise 
characterizes personal purification, presup- 
posed by that love which is ever and anon 
manifested, as that which should have been 
accomplished once for all (as if it were possible 
to command that something should have taken 
place) ; he then adds that he who has not yet 
dedicated his soul to brotherly love must do 
80 still (!). 

2 Schott leaves this religious reference en- 


tirely unnoticed. He states that the original 
meaning of the word ayvos “18 that purity of 
mind which regards one thing only as the 
foundation and aim of all practical life, —the 
truly moral.’ Cremer, too, thinks that 
although originally it had the religious sense 
to dedicate,” it is (John xi. 55, Acts xxi. 24, 
26, xxiv. 18, excepted) as a term. techn. foreign 
to the N. T., and is here only equal to ‘to 
purify,” ‘to cleanse” (without the secondary 
meaning “ to dedicate ’’). 

3 Calvin’s limitation of the idea is arbitrary : 
‘‘veritatem accipit pro regula, quam nobis 
Dominus in evangelio praescribit.” 


CHAP, I. 28. 237 
i. 5.1— ἀλλήλους ἀγαπῆσατε ἐκτενῶς]. ἀγαπᾶν is not to be limited, as Wiesinger 
proposes, “to the manifestation of love in act;” the passages, chap. iv. 8, 
1 John iii. 18, do not justify this limitation. —éxrevac, “with strained ener- 
gies;” it denotes here “the persevering intensity of lore” (in like manner, 
Weiss, p. 336; Fronmiller, Hofmann); Luther translates “ardently ;” 
Schott without any reason asserts that in all the N. T. passages the word is 
used only in the temporal sense of duration, and therefore is so to be taken 
here; Luke xxii. 24, Acts xii. 5, xxvi. 7, 1 Pet. iv. 8, are evidence not /or, 
but against, Schott’s assertion. The chief emphasis lies not on ἀγαπήσατε, 
but on ἐκ (καθαρᾶς) καρδίας and ἐκτενῶς. 

Ver. 23. ἀναγεγεννημένοι gives the ground of the preceding exhortation, 
by referring to the regeneration from incorruptible seed already accom- 
plished, which, as it alone renders the ὀγαπᾷν ἐκτενῶς possible, also demands 
it. Luther: “as those who are born afresh;”’ ef. 1 John iv. 7, v.1. This 
regeneration is described, as to the origin of it, by the words which follow, 
and withal in such a way that here, as in ver. 18, the position is strengthened 
by placing the negation first.—obx ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς, ἀλλὰ ἀφθάρτου]. σπορά, 
strictly, “the sowing, the begetting,” is not here used with this active force 
(Aretius: satio incorrupta ἢ. 6. regeneratio ad vitam aeternam. Fronmiiller: 
“the energizing principle of the Holy Spirit”), but it is “seed,” because, as 
De Wette says, the epithet suggests the idea of a substance. By σπορὰ φθαρτῆ 
is to be understood not the semen frugum, but the semen humanum (De Wette, 
Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott, Hofmann); cf. John i. 13. — The question arises, 
in what relation do ἐκ σπορᾶς ἀφθάρτου and διὰ λόγου stand to one another? 
The direct connection of the figurative expression (σπορὰ) with the literal 
(λόγος), and the correspondence which evidently exists between ἀφθάρτου aud 
ζῶντος x. μένοντος, do not allow of the two ideas being considered as different, 
nor of σπορά being taken to denote the “ Holy Spirit” (De Wette-Briickner). 
On the other hand, the difference of the prepositions points to a distinction 
to which, from the fact. that σπορά is a figurative, λόγος a real appellative 
(Gerhard, Weiss, Schott),? justice has not yet been done. The use of the 
two prepositions is to be understood by supposing a different relation of 
the same thing (of the λόγος) to the regeneration ; in ἐξ we have its point 
of departure, and not merely its “originating cause” (Hofmann) ;? we have 


1 This participial clause joins itself natur- 
ally with what precedes, and is not, with 
Hofmann, to be taken with what follows 
(chap. ii. 1); ἀποθέμενοι, as οὖν shows, begins 
a new sentence. The connection proposed by 
Hofmann would give rise to a very clumsy 
phraseology. Were it true that regeneration 
has nothing to do with brotherly love, then of 
course neither has it any thing to do with the 
laying aside of those lusts which are opposed 
to love, spoken of in chap. ii. 1. Hofmann 
says, :ndeed, that chap. ii. 1 describes the 
contra ‘ies of ἁπλότης (childlike simplicity), 
not of diAadeAdia; but is not the opposite of 
the on> the opposite of the otheralso? The 
constrt ction in Rom. xiii. 11 ff. is only in 


appearance similar to that which Hofmann 
understands as occurring here. 

2 Weiss is of opinion that, as an explana- 
tion of the metaphor, διά only can be employed 
with λόγος, not ἐκ, which belongs exclusively 
to the figure. This is, however, incorrect; 
διά would doubtless not have been suited to 
σπορά, but ἐκ might very well have been used 
With λόγου (ef. John iii. 5), indeed, must have 
been so if the Adyos itself were regarded as 
σπορά. The two prepositions express, each of 
them, a different relation. 

3 Also in the passages quoted by Hofmann, 
John i. 13, iii. 5; Matt. i. 18, --- ἐκ indicates 
more than a mere causal action. 


238 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


the word of God looked upon as the principle implanted in man working 
newness of life (ὁ λόγος ἔμφυτος, Jas. i. 21); διά, on the other hand, points to 
the outward instrumentality by which the new life is effected. — διὰ λόγου 
ζῶντος Θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος refers back to ver. 22: ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθ. ; the Chris- 
tian is laid under obligation to continued sanctification ἐν ὑπ. τ. ἀλ., inasmuch 
as he has been begotten again to newness of being, by the word of God, i.e., 
the word of truth. —Adyoc Θεοῦ is every word of divine revelation; here 
especially the word which, originating in God, proclaims Christ, i.e., the 
gospel. Schwenkfeld erroneously understands by it the Johannine Logos, 
which, indeed, even Didymus had considered possible. —On the construc- 
tion of the adj. ζῶντος and μένοντος, Calvin says: possumus legere tam sermonem 
viventem Dei, quam Dei viventis ; he himself prefers the second combination ; 
thus also Vulg., Oecum., Beza, Hensler, Jachmann, etc. Most interpreters 
give preference, and with justice, to the first, for which are decisive both the 
contents of the following verses, in which the emphasis is laid, not on 
the abiding nature of God, but of the word of God, and the position of the 
words — otherwise ζῶντος, on account of the subsequent καὶ μένοντος, must 
have stood after Θεοῦ. The superaddition of μένοντος arises from the circum- 
stance that this attribute is deduced from the previous one, and is brought 
in so as to prepare the way for the passage of Scripture (ver. 25: μένει) (De 
Wette).1 The characteristics specified by these attributes are applicable to 
the word of God, not in its form, but in its inner substance. It is living in 
essence as in effect; and it is enduring, not only in that its results are 
eternal, but because itself never perishes. If the subjoined εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα be 
spurious, then without it the μένειν must not be limited to the present life.” 
Vy. 24, 25. Quotation from Isa. xl. 6, 8, slightly altered from the LXX. 
in order to confirm the eternal endurance of the word by a passage from the 
Old Testament.* — διότι, as in ver. 16; the passage here quoted not only 
confirms the idea μένοντος, but it gives the reason why the new birth has 
taken place through the living and abiding word of God (so, too, Hofm.). 
The reason is this, that it may be a birth into life that passes not away. — 
πᾶσα σάρξ, 1.6., πᾶς ἄνθρωπος; CARO fragilitatem naturae indicat (Aretius) ; not 
“all creature existence,” embracing both stones and plants, ete. (Schott), 
for of a plant it cannot be said that it is ὡς χόρτος. ---- ὡς χόρτος is to be found 


1 Hofmann strangely enough explains the 
position of Θεοῦ by assuming it to be placed 
as an apposition between the two predicates to 
which it serves as basis; be accordingly thinks 
the words should be written thus: διὰ λόγου 
ζῶντος, Θεοῦ, καὶ μένοντος (!). 

2 The word, as the revelation of the Spirit, 
is eternal, although changeable, according to 
its form; to the word also applies what Paul 
says (1 Cor. xy. 54): ‘*this corruptible shall 
put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put 
on immortality.” Luther admirably says: 
“ΤῊ word is an eternal, divine power. For 
although voice and speech pass away, the 
kernel remains, i.e., the understanding, the 


truth which the voice contained. Just as, 
when I put to my lips a cup which contains 
wine, I drink the wine, although I thrust not 
the enp down my throat. Thus it is with the 
word which the voice utters; it drops into 
the heart, and becomes living, although the 
voice 1:emains outside and passes away. There- 
fore it is indeed a divine power, it is God 
Himself.” 

3 The context in no way indicates that the 
apostle had particularly desired to make em- 
phatic “that natural nationalities, with all 
their glory, form but a tie for these earthly 
periods of time”’ (Schott). 


CHAP. I. 25. 239 


neither in the Hebrew text nor in the LXX. — καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῆς; instead of 
αὐτῆς, the LXX. have ἀνθρώπου; in Hebrew, 10M. Incorrectly, Vorstius: Ap. 
nomine carnis et gloriae ejus intelligit praecipue legem Mosis et doctrinas hominum ; 
Calyin, again rightly: omne id quod in rebus humanis magnificum dicitur. — 
ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος, k.7.A., gives the point of comparison, that wherein the σάρξ 
and its δόξα resemble the yépro¢ and its ἄνθος; but it does not emphatically 
assert that ‘‘ the relation of the flesh to its glory in point of nothingness is 
quite the same as that of the grass in its bloom” (Schott). —xai τὸ ἄνθος 
αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσε]. αὐτοὺ, if it be the true reading, is an addition made by Peter, 
for it is to be found neither in the LXX. nor in the Hebrew text. By the 
preterites ἐξηράνθη and ἐξέπεσε the transitoriness is more strongly marked; 
ef. Jas. i. 11, v. 2. — Ver. 25. Instead of κυρίου, the LXX. have τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, 
TN. κυρίου can hardly haye been written on purpose by Peter “ because 
he had in his mind Christ’s word” (Luthardt). James refers to the same 
passage here cited by Peter, without, however, quoting it verbatim. — In the 
following words the apostle makes the application: τοῦτο dé ἐστιν]. τοῦτο is 
not used “substantively, as the predicate of the sentence, equal to that 
is, namely, eternally abiding word of God is, the word of God preached 
among you” (Schott); but it refers back simply to the preceding τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου, 
and is equivalent to, “this word, of which it is said that it remaineth for- 
ever, is the word which has been preached among you.” — τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ ebayye- 
λισθέν]. Periphrasis for the gospel. In the O. T. it denotes the word of 
promise, here the gospel. Peter identifies them with each other, as indeed 
in their inmost nature they are one, containing the one eternal purpose of 
God for the redemption of the world, distinguished only according to dif- 
ferent degrees of development. — εἰς ὑμᾶς, i.e., ὑμῖν ; in the expression here 
used, however, the reference to the hearers comes more distinctly into promi- 
nence (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 9, and Linemann in loc.).—In the last words Peter 
has spoken of the gospel preached to the churches to which he writes, as the 
word of God, by which his readers are begotten again of the incorruptible 
seed of divine life, so that as such, in obedience to the truth thus commu- 
nicated to them, they must sanctify themselves to unfeigned love of the 
brethren. 


240 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


CHAPTER II. 


Ver. 1. Instead of ὑποκρίσεις, Breads ὑπόκρισιν; correction after the pre- 
ceding δόλον, with which it is in signification closely linked on. In like manner 
the reading πᾶσαν καταλαλίαν, τὲ (pr. m.), for πάσας καταλαλίας, is to be taken as 
an alteration. In A, some vss., πάσας is wanting before καταλαλίας ; it could 
easily have fallen aside, inasmuch as the two preceding words are without 
adjectives. — Ver. 2. After αὐξηθῆτε, most codd. (A, B, C, K, P, &, al.), ete., 
read: εἰς σωτηρίαν (accepted by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.). The adjunct 
is wanting in the Rec. (after L, and several min.); it may be omitted, inasmuch 
as an adjunct of this kind is not necessary to the words, ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε. 
Ver. 3. The Rec. εἴπερ, after C, K, L, P, al., Vulg. (si tamen), is retained by 
Tisch. 7; on the other hand, Tisch. 8 and Lachm. have adopted the simple εἰ. 
This is supported by A, B, δὲ (m. pr. C has corrected εἴπερ), Cyr., Clem. The 
Ree. seems to have made the alteration for the sake of the sense. — Ver. 5. 
Instead of οἰκοδομεῖσθε (Tisch. 7), A**, C, 8, several min., Vulg., Cyr. read ἐποικο- 
δομεῖσθε (Tisch. 8), which, however, seems to be a correction after Eph. 11. 20. — 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read the prep. εἰς between οἶκος πνευματικός and ἱεράτευμα 
ἅγιον, after A, B, Ὁ, κα, 5, al., several vss., and Καὶ, ἡ. The common reading is 
supported by K, L, P, many min., Vulg., other versions, Clem., etc.; Tisch. 7 
has retained it; De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, have in like manner 
declared themselves in favor of the Rec. ; De Wette speaks of the interpolation 
of εἰς, ‘as facilitating a transition, otherwise abrupt, to another conception; ”’ 
on the other hand, Briickner and Hofmann prefer the other reading, which is 
attested by weightier witnesses. The εἰς may be omitted, inasmuch as the 
thought might seem inappropriate that an oixog should be built up to an 
ἱεράτευμα. --- τῷ before Θεῷ is doubtful ; for it, are L, P, etc.; against, A, B, C, 
δ, al. Lachm. and Tisch. have doubtless correctly omitted it. — Ver. 6. διότι, 
with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., etc., according to almost all the authorities, 
instead of the Rec. διὸ καὶ, which is to be found only in min. and in Orig. — 
ἐν τῇ γραφῇ]. Ree., after K, L, P, several min., etc.; Tisch. reads, after A, B, 
᾿ς, 38, 73, ἐν γραφῇ ; Lachm. has adopted 7 ypa¢7, which is found in C, several 
min., Vulg., Hier., Aug. This last reading seems, however, to be only a correc- 
tion, in order to avoid the difficulty which lies in connecting the verb περιέχει 
with ἐν (τῇ) γραφῇ. ---- Instead of ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, & (pr. m.) has ἐπ᾽ abtov, which is not 
supported by other witnesses. — Ver. 7. Instead of the ἀπειθοῦσιν of the Rec., 
after A, K, L, P, ete. (Tisch. 7, Lachm., Buttm.), Tisch. 8, after B, C, 8, al., 
has adopted ἀπιστουσιν. Perhaps the Ree. is a correction after ver. 8. — λίθον], 
Rec., after C**, K, L, P, δὰ (pr. m.). al., Thph. — Retained by Tisch.; in its 
stead Lachm. has λέθος ; this reading is found in A, B, C*, several min., Oec. 
Since in Greek it is by no means uncommon that the substantive is often put 


CHAP. II. 241 


in the same case as the relative which it precedes, λίθον need occasion no sur- 
prise ; as, in addition to this, λίθον is found in the LXX., λίθος seems to have 
been the original reading, which became changed into λίθον, following the LX X. 
and the common usage in Greek. — The words λίθος... γωνίας καί are wanting 
in the Syr. ver.; Grotius, Mill, Semler, Hottinger, therefore consider them 
spurious, for which, nevertheless, sufficient justification is wanting. — Ver. 11. 
᾿ἀπέχεσθαι]. Rec., after B, K, 8, several min., vss., and K, V; retained by Lachm. 
and Tisch., whilst A, C, L, P, several min., read ἀπέχεσθε, which Buttm. has 
adopted ; see on this the commentary ; Lachm. adds ὑμᾶς, after the Vulg., as 
Tisch. remarks, “‘ ex errore de Ο.᾽" — Ver. 12. Instead of ἐποπτεύσαντες, Rec., 
after A, K, L, P, al., ἐποπτεύοντες must be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., after 
B, C, δὰ, al., Thph., Oec.; on account of the δοξάσωσιν following, the present 
could easily have been changed into the aorist. — Ver. 13. ὑποτάγητε οὖν]. Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8 omit οὖν, after A, B, C, 8, al., Didy., Cassiod.; οὖν (Tisch. 7) is sup- 
ported only by K, L, P, many min., etc.; it is possible that οὖν was interpolated 
in order to obtain a firmer connection of thought. In Cod. καὶ (pr. τη.) ἀνθρωπίνῃ 
is wanting, but is supported by almost all witnesses. — Ver. 14. The Rec., fol- 
lowing C and several min., retains μέν after ἐκδίκησιν, which had been rightly 
rejected already by Griesbach. — Ver. 18. & has after δεσπόταις the pron. ὑμῶν. -- 
Ver. 19. — Different adjuncts to χάρις are found in different codd., as Θεοῦ, Θεῷ, 
παρὰ Θεῷ, παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, which have been all interpolated later, in order to define 
the idea more precisely. —Several min. and C have, instead of συνείδησιν Θεοῦ : 
συνείδησιν ἀγαθὴν ; in A* both readings are combined : συνείδησιν Θεοῦ ἀγαθῆν. --- 
Ver. 20. The Rec. has τοῦτο χάρις : this reading Tisch. 8 has retained, as he 
asserts, following B, C, K, L, P, &, ete.; on the other hand, Lachm., Buttm., 
Tisch. 7, read τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις, after A. According to Buttm., this reading is 
found also in B (δὲ ?). — Ver. 21. The codices vary between the Rec. (ed. Elzev.) 
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν, which is found in A, B, C, &, several min., Oec., Amb., etc. 
(Lachm., Tisch. 8) ; ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ὑμῖν in K, L, P, al., Slav., Vulg., Cyr., ete. (Scholz, 
Tisch. 7, Reiche), and ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἡμῖν, in several min., etc. (Rec.). Tisch. 
remarks: Nil probabilius quam ἡμῖν ὑμῖν in caussa fuisse, cur bis ab aliis ὑμῖν ab 
aliis ἡμῖν scriberetur. Quod tota oratio ad lectores incitandos instituta est, id 
emendatori magis ὑμῖν quam ἡμῖν commendabat. According to almost all the 
authorities, ὑμῖν is the original reading ; it is possible that, in accordance with 
it, ἡμῶν was changed into ὑμῶν ; it is also possible that the application of Xp. 
ἔπαθεν to the readers alone seemed inappropriate to the copyist, and that he 
changed ὑμῶν into ἡμῶν, Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofm. hold ἡμῶν, and Briickner 
ὑμῶν, to be the original reading ; the weightiest authorities decide for ὑμῶν. ---- 
τὲ reads ἀπέθανεν instead of ἔπαθεν, supported by general testimony, and in ver. 
23, ἐλοιδόρει (pr. m.) instead of ἀντελοιδόρει. --- Ver. 24. The αὐτοῦ after μώλωπι 
(Rec.) is supported only by L, P, & (pr. m.), 40, al., Thph., Oec., whilst A, B, C, 
K, have it not ; Lachm. has accordingly omitted it, whilst Tisch., on the other 
hand, has retained it. Although αὐτοῦ is in itself the more difficult, still, on 
account of the preponderating evidence against it, it can hardly be regarded as the 
original reading ; its addition can be explained also partly from the endeavor to 
form this relative clause as similarly as possible to the preceding ὃς... αὐτός, 
partly from the circumstance that it is to be found in Isa, 111], 5, LXX.; although 
Tisch. says: od . . αὐτοῦ emendatori deberi incredibile est ; nec magis credi- 
bile αὐτοῦ ex LX X. inlatum esse servato inepte οὗ, Wiesinger, Briickner, Schott, 
Hofm., hold αὐτοῦ to be original. — Ver. 25. πλανώμενα] Rec., after C, K, L, P, 
etc., Thph., Oec.; on the other hand, Lachm. and Tisch., following A, B, &, 


DAD THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


etc., Tol., Harl., Fulg., have adopted πλανώμενοι, which is probably the original 
reading ; the change into πλανώμενα was very natural, on account of the πρόβατα 
immediately preceding. 


Vv. 1, 2. ἀποθέμενοι οὖν. . . ἐπιποθῆσατε]. The admonition which com- 
mences here stands, as οὖν shows, in close conrection with what precedes. 
In ver. 22 the apostle had exhorted to unfeigned love one of another, which 
love he shows to be conditioned by dyvitew ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας, and 
grounded on ἀναγεγεννημένον eivat; from this deducing the ἀποτίθεσθαι πᾶσαν 
κακίαν, k.7.A., he now exhorts ἐπιποθεῖν τὸ λογικὸν γάλα. The apostle’s intention, 
explaining at once the connection of this with the foregoing admonition, and 
the relation in which the thought of the participial clause ἀποθέμενοι stands 
to that of the imperative ἐπιποθήσατε, is that the Christians should show 
themselves τέκνα ὑπακοῆς (i. 14), not each for himself, but united together, 
an οἷκος πνευματικός (ver. 5), γένος ἐκλεκτόν, x.7.A. (ver. 9). Schott acknowledges 
this reference (unjustifiably denied by Hofmann) to the unity of the church; 
it explains why the apostle mentions those sins only which stand in direct 
antagonism to the φιλαδελφία ἀνυπόκριτος (i. 22). The participle ἀποθέμενοι 
stands to ἐπιποθήσατε in the same relation as ἀναζωσάμενοι to ἐλπίσατε in chap. 
1.13; it is therefore not equal to postquam deposuistis, but expresses the 
continued purification of the Christian; comp. Eph. iv. 22; Heb. xii. 1; 
specially also Col. iii. 8; and for the whole passage, Jas. i. 21. — πᾶσαν 
κακίαν, x.7.A.]. Calvin: non est integra omnium enumeratio quae deponi a nobis 
oportet, sed cum de veteri homine disputant Apostoli, quaedam vitia praeponunt 
in exemplum, quibus illius ingenium designant. κακία means here, as in Col. 
iii. 8, not generally, “ wickedness,” but specially “malice,” nocendi cupiditas 
(Hemming). πᾶσαν denotes the whole compass of the idea: “every kind of 
malice.” The same is implied by the plural form in the words following 
ὑποκρίσεις, etc. ; ἴῃ πάσας καταλαλίας both are combined. The same and simi- 
lar ideas to those here expressed are to be found conjoined elsewhere in the 
N. T.; comp. Rom. i. 29, 80. “The admonitions which follow are in essen- 
tial connection with this comprehensive exhortation ; comp. chap. ii. 22 ff. ; 
especially chaps. iii. 8 ff., iv. 8 ff., v. 2 ff.” (Wiesinger). For the force of 
the separate terms, comp. lexicon.1— καταλαλία occurs only here and in 2 
Cor. xii. 20; in the classics the verb is to be found, never the subst. — 
Ver. 2. ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη is not to be connected with ἀποθέμενοι, but with 
what follows. It does not mark the childlike nature of the Christians, but, 
in view of the goal of manhood yet afar off, is meant (referring to i. 23: 
ἀναγεγεννημένοι) to designate the readers as those who had but recently been 
born again.? In Bengel’s interpretation: denotatur prima aetas ecclesiae 
N. T., a false reference is given to the expression. The particle ὡς is here 
also not used with a comparative force only; comp. chap. i. 14. — τὸ 
λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπιποθῆσατε]. γάλα is not here contrasted with βρῶμα, as in 


1 Augustin: ‘‘malitia maculo delectatur 2 It must be observed that the expression 
alieno; invidia bono cruciatur alieno; dolus was used by the Jews also to designate the 
duplicat cor; adulatio duplicat linguam; de- proselytes; corroborating passages in Wet- 


trectatio vulnerat famam.” stein in loc. 


CHAP. II. 1, 2. 243 


1 Cor. iii. 2, or with στερεὰ τροφῇ, as in Heb. v. 12; but it denotes the word 
of God, in that it by its indwelling strength nourishes the soul of man. 
The term yada, as applied by the apostle, is to be explained simply ffom 
the reference to ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). ‘This view 
results quite naturally from the comparison with chap. i. 22,23. If Peter 
had intended to convey any other meaning, he would have indicated it so as 
to have been understood.! — λογικόν does not state an attribute of evangelical 
doctrine: “rational;” Gualther: quod tradit rationem vere credendi et vivendi, 
not even in the sense that this (with Smaleius in Calov.) might be inferred: 
nihi: credendum esse quod ratione adversetur ; but it is added in order to mark 
the figurative nature of the expression γάλα (to which it stands related simi- 
larly as in chap. i. 13: τῆς dav. du. to τὰς ὀσφύας), so that by it this milk is 
characterized as a spiritual nourishment. Luther: “spiritual, what is drawn 
in by the soul, what the heart must seek;” thus, too, Wiesinger, Schott, 
Briickner, Fronmiiller, Hofmann. It has here the same signification as in 
Rom. xii. 1, where it does not mean “rational” as contrasted with what is 
external (De Wette). The interpretation on which λογικὸν γάλα is taken 
as equal to γάλα τοὺ λόγου, lac verbale, is opposed to the usus loquendi (it is 
supported by Beza, Gerhard, Calov., Hornejus, Bengel, Wolf, and others). 
Nor less so is the suggestion of Weiss (p. 187), that by “λογικόν is to be 
understood that which proceeds from the λόγος (i.e., Word);” thus γάλα 
λογικόν would be the verbal milk of doctrine.?- The second adjective: ἄδολον 
(ἀπ. Aey.), strictly “without guile,” then “pure, unadulterated,” is not meant 
to give prominence to the idea that the Christians should strive to obtain 
the pure gospel, unadulterated by heretical doctrines of man, but it specifies 
purity as a quality belonging to the gospel (Wiesinger, Schott). It is, 
besides, applicable, strictly speaking, not to the figurative γάλα, but only 
to the word of God thereby denoted (Schott).4— ἐπιποθήσατε expresses a 
strong, lively desire, Phil. ii. 26. Wolf: Ap. alludit ad infantes, quos sponte 
sua et impetu quodam naturali in lac maternum ferri constat. The conjecture 
of Grotius: ἐπιποτίζετε, is quite unnecessary. — iva ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε]. iva, not 
ἐκβατικῶς, but τελικῶς; it states the purpose of the ἐπιποθήσατε. ἐν is more sig- 
nificant than διά, equivalent to “in its power.” The verb αὐξηθῆτε, used in 
connection with ἀρτιγενν, βρέφη, denotes the ever further development and 
strengthening of the new life. Although the aim which the apostle has in 


1 Calvin understands γάλα to mean: “ vitae 
ratio quae novam genituram sapiat;’? Hem- 
ming: ‘‘ consentanea simplici infantiae vivendi 
ratio; ᾿" Cornelius a Lapide: “‘symbolum can- 
doris, sinceritatis et benevolentiae.” All these 
interpretations are contradicted by the fact 
that yada is not a condition of life, but means 
of nourishment. It is altogether arbitrary to 
explain yada to be the Lord’s Supper (Estius, 
Turrianus, Salmeron), or as meaning Christ 
as the incarnate Logos (Clemens Al. in Pae- 
dag., i.c. 6; Augustin in Tract. iii., in 1 Zp. 
John); Weiss, too, is mistaken, when he says: 
“The nourishment of the new-born child of 


God is Christ Himself, who is preached and 
revealed in the word.” 

2 Besides, how does this agree with Weiss’s 
opinion, that γάλα means Christ Himself? 
The verbal Christ?! 

8 Wolf: “lace ἄδολον ideo appellari puto, ut 
indicetur, operam dandam esse, ne illud tra- 
ditionibus humanis per καπηλεύοντας τὸν λόγον, 
2 Cor. ii. 17, corruptum hauriatur.” 

4 Hofmann rightly observes: ‘* What tends 
to the Christian’s growth may be compared 
to the pure milk which makes the chlld to 
thrive at its mother’s breast, and therefore it 
is termed τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον yada.” 


~~ 


944 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


view in his exhortation is to mark the destination of Christians to be an 
οἶκος πνευματικός, still it is incorrect to affirm that αὐξηθῆτε has reference, not 
to the growth of the individual, but (with Schott) only to the transforming 
of the church as such, “to the conception of a building which is being 
carried up higher and higher to its completion.” Apart from the fact that 
αὐξάνεσθαι plainly refers back to ἀρτιγ. βρέφη, and is not equivalent to “to be 
built up,” it must be remarked that the church can become what it should 
be, only by individual members growing up each of them ever more and 
more to the ἀνὴρ τέλειος. --- εἰς σωτηρίαν, omitted in the Rec., states the final 
aim of all Christian growth. Schott’s explanation, that by σωτηρία “the 
final glorious transfiguration of the church” is meant, is only a consequence 
of his erroneous and one-sided reference of the apostle’s exhortation to the 
church as such. 

Ver. 3. εἰ (εἴπερ) ἐγεύσασθε, ὅτι, x.7.A.]. Based on the Old Testament pas- 
sage, Ps. xxxiv. 9: γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι χρηστὸς 6 κύριος ; the words καὶ idere are 
omitted, not being suitable to the figure yéAu.—éi is here, as in ver. 17, 
hypothetical indeed: “if,” but it does not express a doubt; thus Gerhard 
correctly explains εἴπερ: non est dubitantis, sed supponentis, quod factum sit. 
Comp. Rom. viii. 9; 2 Thess. i. 6. — γεύομαι is used here of inward experi- 
ence, comp. Heb. vi. 4, 5; it alludes to the figurative γάλα, inasmuch as the 
Christian tastes, as it were, of the kindness of the Lord in the spiritual milk 
tendered to him. The apostle takes for granted that the Christians had 
already made inward experience of the goodness of their Lord (κύριος; in 
the Psalms, God ; here, Christ), not merely in the instruction which preceded 
baptism, or in baptism itself (Lorinus), or cum jfidem evangelii susceperunt 
(Hornejus), but generally during their life as Christians; as the new-born 
child, not once only, but ever anew, refreshes itself on the nourishment 
offered by a mother’s love. With such experience, it is natural that be- 
lievers should ever afresh be eager for the spiritual nourishment, in the 
imparting of which the χρηστότης of the Lord is manifested: nam gustus 
provocat appetitum (Lorinus).!— ὅτι, not equal to quam (Grotius), but “ that.” 
- χρηστός, “kind, gracious,” not exactly suavis (Grotius: ut a guslu sumta 
translatio melius procedat); in this sense it would be more applicable to yada 
than to κύριος. ---- Several interpreters assume that in χρηστός Peter plays upon 
the word Χριστός; but this is more than improbable. 

Vy. 4, 5. The structure of this new exhortation is similar to that of the 
previous sentence, to which it belongs in thought, externally (ὅν) as inter- 
nally, inasmuch as the imperative (οἰκοδομεῖσθε) is preceded by a participle 
(xposepyouevor), and an adjunct introduced by ὡς, defining the subject more 
nearly. — Starting from ὁ κύριος the apostle says: πρὸς ὃν προσερχύμενοι]. προσέρ- 
χεσθαι (elsewhere in the N. T. always construed with the dative) denotes the 
going spiritually to the Lord; the Christian does indeed already live in 


1 Schott insists ‘‘ that the apostle is not here Nothing in the context indicates that that in 
anxious about the readers’ desire in general which the χρηστότης of the Lord is manifested 
for the word, but that such desire should be is ‘those rare moments of heavenly joy in 
combined with the purpose of finally attaining which this life is a foretaste of eternal glory ” 
salvation.”” But is there anywhere a desire (Schott). 
after the word of God without such intent? 


“ 


CHAP. II. 4, ὅ. 245 


union with Christ, but this does not exclude the necessity of becoming 
united ever more completely with Him (thus also Hofmann).? Luther, 
incorrectly: “to whom ye have come,” as if it were the part. praet.; Hor- 
nejus well puts it: non actum inchoatum, sed continuatum designat.— λίθον ζῶντα, 
in apposition to ὅν; it is not necessary to supply ὡς (Wolf). What follows 
shows that the apostle had in his mind the stone mentioned in the prophecies, 
Ps. exviii. 22 and Isa. xxviii. 16 (cf. Matt. xxi. 42; Acts iv. 11; Rom. ix. 33). 
The want of the article points to the fact that the apostle was more con- 
cerned to lay stress on the attribute expressed in λίθος ζῶν, than to draw 
attention to the fact that in these passages of the O. T. Christ is the prom- 
ised λίθος. In using this term, Peter had already in view the subsequent 
oixodousicbe. The church is the temple of God, the individual Christians are 
the stones from which it is built; but Christ is the foundation-stone on 
which it rests. In order that the church may become ever more completed 
as a temple, it is necessary that the Christians should unite themselves ever 
more closely with Christ. The apostle enlarges on this thought with refer- 
ence to those predictions. — The explanatory adjective is added, as in ver. 2, 
to the figurative λιθον ; and by it, on the one hand, the expression’ is marked 
as figurative, ne quis tropum nesciret (Bullinger); and, on the other, the 
nature peculiar to this stone is indicated. ζῶντα is to be taken here as in John 
vi. 51 and similar passages. Flacius, correctly: dicitur Christus lapis vivus, 
non tamen passive, quod in semet vitam habeat, sed etiam active, quia nos mortuos 
vivifical.2— ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μὲν ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον, a nearer definition, according 
to Ps. exviii. 22 What is there said specially of the builders, is here 
applied generally to mankind, in order that a perfect antithesis may be 
obtained to the παρὰ de Θεῷ. The want of the article τῶν does not warrant 
a toning-down of the interpretation to mean “by men,” i.e., by some or by 
many men (Hofmann). The thought is general and comprehensive; the 
article is wanting in order to emphasize the character of those by whom 
Christ is rejected, as compared with God (Schott). Believers are here 
regarded “as an exception” (Steiger). — παρὰ δέ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν, ἔντιμον, after 
Isa. xxviii. 16; Peter has, however, selected two attributes only; that is to 
say, he passes over the characteristics of the stone itself, and its relation 
to the building, giving prominence only to its value in the sight of God” 
(Steiger). Both adjects. form the antithesis to dmodedok.; ἐκλεκτός is neither 
equal to eximius (Hemming) nor to προεγνωσμένος (Steiger); but “elect,” ie., 


1 The single passage, 1 Macc. ii. 16, by no 
means proves that προσέρχεσθαι πρός has in 
itself a stronger force than προσέρχ. cum dat. 
(as against Hofmann). According to Schott, 
by προσέρχ. is meant: “not the individual 
Christian’s deepening experience of commu- 
nity of life with Christ, but only the conduct 
of the believer, by which, as a member of the 
church, he gives himself up to the Lord as 
present in His church, in fact to the church 
itself”! 

2 De Wette (as opposed to Clericus and 
Steiger) is right in refusing to see here any 


reference to the conception of the sarum 
vivume as Opposed to broken stones (Virg., 
Aen., i. 171; Ovid., Metam., xiv. 741). Inap- 
propriate is Schott’s opinion, ‘that ζῶν indi- 
cates that by the self-unfolding(!) of His 
divinely human life, Christ causes the church 
to grow up from Himself the foundation 
stone.” Hofmann would erroneously exclude 
the second of the above-mentioned ideas from 
the λίθον ζῶντα, although it is clearly indicated 
by the very fact that, through connection with 
the stone, Christians themselves become living 
stones. 


240 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

chosen as the object of love; cf. 1 Tim. v. 21.— rapa Θεῷ, not a Deo (Vulg.), 
but ἐνώπιον τοὺ Θεοῦ, coram Deo, Deo judice, “with God.” Worthy of note is 
the “antagonism between the human judgment and the divine” (Wiesinger), 
the former given effect to in the crucifixion, the latter in the glorification of 
Christ. — Ver. 5. καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε]. καὶ αὐτοί places the 
Christians side by side with Christ (Wiesinger inappropriately takes αὐτοί as 
also applying to the verb oixodou.). As He is a living stone, so are they also 
living stones, i.e., through Him. The explanation: cum lapidibus comparan- 
tur homines, qui, quoniam vivant, vivi lapides nominantur (Carpzov, Morus), is 
inadequate. Further, ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες states the qualities which the readers 
already possessed, not those which they were to obtain only through the 
οἰκοδομεῖσθαι (Schott) ; that unto which they should be built is stated in what 
follows. — οἰκοδομεῖσθε is, according to the structure of the sentence, not in- 
dicative! but imperative. The objection that the verses following are - 
declarative, may be quite as well used for the imperative force of that which 
precedes them.? If vy. 4, 5, serve as the basis of the foregoing exhortation, 
this turn of the thought would also be expressed. Several interpreters (as 
Luther and Steiger) incorrectly regard the verbal form as middle; it is 
passive; “be ye built up,” ie., “let yourself be built up,” i.e., by Christ, as 
the foregoing πρὸς ὃν mpocepysueva Shows. Corresponding with the reading 
ἐποικοδομεῖσθε super illum, i.e., Christum, is generally understood; an unneces- 
sary supplement; the thought is: that (not on which) the Christians should 
let themselves be built up, to that, namely, which the following words state. 
In the Rec. without εἰς the two concep- 
tions are co-ordinate, both stating the end of the οἰκοδομεῖσθαι: “to the spiritual 
house, to the holy priesthood ;” but if the reading οἰκ. mv. εἰς igpar. Gy. be adopted, 
then “ ἑεράτ. dy. is the further result of the being built up to the spiritual 
house” (Bruckner). Hofmann holds that oixoc xv. is in apposition to the 
subject contained in οἰκοδομεῖσθε, and that εἰς ἱεράτευμα dy. alone is directly 
dependent on οἰκοδομεῖσθε; the former view is, however, more expressive, 
inasmuch as it prominently shows that the Christians should be built up to 
a spiritual house. οἶκος xv. contains the expression of the passive, iepar. ἄγ.» 
on the other hand, that of the active relation of the church to God (Wie- 
singer, Schott, Briickner). The dissimilarity of the two ideas seems to be 
opposed to the reading εἰς, since an οἶκος cannot be transformed into a ἑερά- 
τευμα ; but this difficulty disappears if it be considered that the house here 
spoken of is built of living stones. It is clearly not the case that εἰς serves 
only to facilitate an otherwise abrupt transition to a new idea (De Wette, 
Wiesinger). — οἶκος means, in the first instance, “house,” and not “ temple;” 
nor does the attribute πνευματικός mark it as a temple. We must either hold 


— οἶκος πνευματικός εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον. 


1 Hornejus, Bengel, Gerhard, etc.; more 
recently, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann. 
2 Beza, Aretius, Hottinger, Steiger, De 


necessarily be indicative in form, ‘* because 
the words subjoined to χρηστὸς ὃ κύριος must 
state that to which the goodness of Christ 


Wette-Briickner, Luthardt, Schott, etc. 

3 The structure of the clause is in favor of 
the imperative, inasmuch as it is thus brought 
into conformity with the imperative preceding. 
When Hofmann asserts that the sentence must 


brings them,” he does so without reason, for 
the clause may also state that to which they 
should allow the goodness of Christ to lead 
them. 


CHAP. II. 4, 5. 247 


by the conception “house” (Luthardt, Hofmann),? or assume that by the 
house Peter thought of the temple. The latter view deserves the preference 
on account of the close connection with what follows: comp. the passages 
1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; 2 Cor. vi. 16; 1 Pet. iv. 17. — πνευματικός is the house 
raised from “living stones,” in contradistinction to the temple built from 
dead ones, inasmuch as their life is rooted in the Spirit of God, and bears 
His nature on it.? — ἱεράτευμα is here not the “ office of priest” (2 Mace. ii. 17), 
but the “ priesthood” (comp. Gerhard: coetus 8. collegium sacerdotum) ; comp. 
ver. 9; Exod. xix. 6; “not instead of ἱερεῖς ἅγιοι, but including the essential 
idea of a community” (De Wette). It has unjustly been maintained that 
if the reading εἰς be adopted, ἱεράτευμα must be understood of the priestly 
office. ἄγων subjoined to ἱεράτευμα does not mark a characteristic of the 
ἱεράτευμα of the New as distinguishing it from that of the Old Testament, 
but one which belongs essentially to the ἱεράτευμα (of course “as ordained by 
God,” Hofmann) as such. Here, too, there lies in the connection of thought 
a special emphasis on ἅγιον, inasmuch as without sanctification the priestly 
ealling cannot be truly fulfilled. — ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας is closely con- 
joined both in form (see Winer, p. 298 f. [E. T., 8171) and purport with 
what precedes, pointing out as it does the function of the ἱεράτευμα. This 
consists, as under the Old Covenant, in offering sacrifice. The word dva- 
φέρειν, Which is never used by Paul, has not indeed in the classics, but in 
the LXX., in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Epistle of James, the 
meaning “to sacrifice ;” strictly speaking, “to bring the offering to the altar.” 
— The θυσίαι which the N. T. priesthood, i.e., the Christian Church in all 
its members, has to offer, are called πνευματικαΐ, because they have their origin 
in the πνεῦμα, and bear on them its nature and essence.? Cf. with this Rom. 
xii. 1; Heb. xiii. 15, 16. — εὐπροσδεκτους τῷ Θεῷ]. εὐπρόσδεκτος (Rom. xv. 16), 
equivalent to εὐάρεστος (Rom. xii. 1, xiv. 18; Phil. iv. 18, and other pas- 
sages). — διὰ ’lnovd Χριστοῦ belongs not to οἰκοδομεῖσθε (Beda), but either to 
εὐπροσὸ. τ. Θεῷ (Luther: per Christum fit, ut et mea opera a Deo aestimentur, 
quae alias non culmo digna haberet; Bengel, Steiger, Wiesinger, Hofmann, 
etc.), or to ἀνενέγκαε (Grotius, Aretius, De Wette, Weiss, etc.).4 No doubt 
Heb. xiii. 15 might be appealed to in support of the latter construction ; 
but in favor of the former are, (1) That the ἀνενέγκαι as a priestly function 
stands in such close connection with ἑεράτευμα Gy., that it seems out of place 


1 Luthardt: “οἶκος is not equal to ναός ; 
nor in the context is a temple alluded to, for 
the emphasis lies on πνευματικός. oixos is 
chosen because of οἰκοδομεῖσθε : be ye built as 
a spiritual house! To this is joined, ‘to an 
holy priesthood.’ ” 

2 Schott finds the antithesis therein, that in 
the O. T. temple “ the indwelling of God was 
confined to the holy of holies, and visible to 
the eye’ (3); whilst, on the contrary, in the 
Christian Church there is ‘‘a real and direct 
indwelling of God.” 

8 Calvin says in what they consist: ‘‘ inter 
_hostias spirituales primum locum obtinet 


generalis nostri oblatio, neque enim offerre 
quicquam possumus Deo, donec illi nos ipsos 
in sacrificium obtulerimus, quod fit nostri 
abnegatione; sequuntur postea preces et gra- 
tiarum actiones, eleemosynae et omnia pietatis 
exercitia.” 

4 Briickner and Schott think it is correct to 
connect διὰ “I. Xp. not with ἀνενέγκαι only, but 
with the entire thought; but it is self-under- 
stood that in the first eombination, not the 
mere ἀναφέρειν, but the ἀναφέρειν πνευματικὰς 
θυσίας, x.T.A., must be cousidered as effected 
by Christ. 


248 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


to suppose a medium (διὰ Ἰησ. Xp.) in addition; and (2) With ἀνενέγκαι mvevu. 
θυσίας the idea is substantially completed, εὐπροσὸ. being a mere adjunct, to 
which therefore διὰ ’1. Xp. also belongs. 


REMARK. — In this description of the Christians’ calling, the apostle’s first 
object is not to state the difference between the church of the Old and that of 
the New Covenant, but to show distinctly that in the latter there is and should 
have been fulfilled what had aforetime indeed been promised to the former, but 
had appeared in her only in a typical and unsatisfactory way. The points of 
difference are distinctly set forth. Israel had a house of God; the Christian 
Church is called to be itself that house of God. That house was built of inani- 
mate stones, this of living stones ; it is a spiritual house. Israel was to be a 
holy priesthood, but it was so only in the particular priesthood introduced into 
the church ; the Christian Church is called to be a ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον in this sense, 
that each individual in it is called upon to perform the office of priest. The 
sacrifices which the priests in Israel had to offer were beasts and the like ; those 
of the Christians are, on the other hand, spiritual sacrifices, through Christ, 
well-pleasing to God. — The idea of a universal priesthood, here expressed, is 
opposed not only to the catholic doctrine of a particular priesthood, but to all 
teaching with regard to the office of the administration of word and sacrament 
which in any way ascribes to its possessors an importance in the church, resting 
on divine mandate, and necessary for the communication of salvation (i.e., 
priestly importance). 


Ver. 6 gives the ground for the exhortation contained in vv. 4, 5, by a 
quotation of the passage, Isa. xxviii. 16, to which reference was already 
made in ver. 4. — dire]. cf. 1. 24. — περιέχει ἐν τῇ γραφῇ : aN UNCOMMON con- 
struction, yet not without parallel; see Joseph., Anit., xi. 7: βούλομαι γίνεσθαι 
πάντα, καθὼς ἐν αὐτῇ (i.€., ἐπιστολῇ) περιέχει; indeed, περιέχειν is more than once 
used to denote the contents of a writing, see Acts xxiii. 25; Joseph., Anit., 
xi. 9: καὶ ἡ μὲν ἐπιστολὴ ταῦτα περιεῖχεν. Either ἡ περιοχῇ (or ὁ τύπος) must, with 
Wahl, be supplied here as subject; or, better, περιέχει must be taken imper- 
sonally as equal to continetur; cf. Winer, p. 237 [E. T., 252]; Buttmann, 
p. 126 [E. T., 144]. —'The words of the passage in the O. T. (Isa. xxviii. 
16) are quoted neither literally from the LXX. nor exactly according to the 
Hebrew text. In the LXX. it is: ἰδού, ἐγὼ ἐμβάλλω εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιὼν (instead 
of which we have here, exactly as in Rom. ix. 33: ἰδού, τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν) λίθον 
πολυτελὴ (this adject. here omitted) ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον (these two words 
here transposed) ἔντιμον εἰς τά θεμέλια αὐτῆς (the last two words εἰς. . . αὑτῆς 
here left out) καὶ ὁ πιστεύων (ἐω᾽ αὑτῷ added) οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθὴ (Rom. ix. 33: 
καὶ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται). Whatever may be understood 
by the stone in Zion, whether the theocracy, or the temple, or the house of 
David, or the promise given to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12, 16 (Hofmann), this 
passage, which certainly has a Messianic character, —inasmuch as the 
thought expressed in it should find, and has found, its fulfilment in Christ, 
—is not here only, but by Paul and the Rabbis (see Vitringa, Ad. Jes., 1. 
p- 217), taken to refer directly to the Messiah, who also, according to Delitzsch 
(cf. in loc.), is directly meant by the stone (“this stone is the true seed of 


CHAP. II. 7. 249 


David, manifested in Christ”). Luther, following Oecumenius and Theo- 
phylactus, assumes that Christ is called λίθος ἀκρογων. because He has united 
Jew and Gentile together, and out of both collected the one church; this 
Calvin, not entirely without reason, calls a subtilius philosophari. In. the 
words: καὶ ὁ πιστεύων, K.7,A., πιστεύων COrresponds to προσερχύμενοι, Ver. 4. οὐ μὴ 
καταισχυνθῇ does not refer to the glory which consists for the believer in this, 
“that he, as a λίθοσ ζῶν, will form part of the οἱκος rv.”” (Wiesinger), but to 
“the final glory of salvation which is the aim of the present moretew” 
(Schott) ; cf. ver. 2: εἰς σωτηρίαν. 

Ver. 7. ὑμὶν οὖν ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν]. Conclusion, with special reference to 
the readers, ὑμῖν, drawn from ver. 6 (oiv), and in the first instance from the 
second half of the O. T. quotation, for τοῖς πιστεύουσιν evidently stands related 
to ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, hence the definite article. On the position of τοῖς mor., 
ef. Winer, p. 511 [E. T., 549]; only, with Winer, it must not be interpreted : 
“as believers, i.e. if ye are believers,” but, ** ye who are believers.” — From 
the fact that 7 τιμῇ echoes ἔντιμον, it must not be concluded that ἡ τιμῇ here 
is the worth which the stone possesses, and that the meaning is: “the worth 
which the stone has, it has for you who believe” (Wiesinger). The clause 
would then have read, perhaps: ὑμῖν οὖν ὁ λίθος ἐστι ἡ τιμῇ, OY the like. ἢ τιμῇ 
stands rather in antithesis to καταισχυνθῆναι, and takes up positively what had 
been expressed negatively in the verse immediately preceding. Gerhard: 
vobis, qui per fidem tanquam lapides vivi super eum aedificamini, est honor coram 
Deo (so, too, De Wette-Briickner, Weiss, Schott); ὑμῖν, se. ἐστι : “ yours there- 
Sore is the honor ;” the article is not without significance here; the honor, 
namely, which in that word is awarded to believers (Steiger). — τοῖς πιστεύ- 
ovo: an explanatory adjunct placed by way of emphasis at the end. — 
ἀπειθοῦσι [ἀπιστοῦσιν dé: antithesis to τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ; ἀπειθεῖν denotes not only 
the simple not believing, but the resistance against belief; thus also ἀπιστοῦσιν 
here, if it be the true reading. Bengel wrongly explains the dative by: 
quod attinet; it is the dat. incommodi (Steiger, De Wette, etc.). The words: 
λίθος (λίθον)... γωνίας, are borrowed literally from Ps. exviii. 22, after the 
LXX. What is fatal for unbelievers in the fact that the stone is become 
the corner-stone (κεφ. ywr, equals 2.0, dxpoy.) is stated in the following words, 
which are taken from Isa. viii. 14: ivan mays PP) 13.2.2 In a manner 
similar, though not quite identical, these passages of the O. T. are woven 
together by Paul in Rom. ix. 33. The words do not denote the subjective 
conduct of the unbelievers (according to Luther, the occasion of stumbling 
or offence which they find in the preaching of the cross), but the objective 
destruction which they bring upon themselves by their unbelief (Steiger, 
De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller); cf. Luke xx. 17, 18, 
where the corner-stone is also characterized as a stone of destruction for 
unbelievers. It is therefore without any foundation that Hofmann asserts 
“the thought that, to the disobedient, Christ is become the corner-stone 


1 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that it is as the corner-stone, must not be understood, 
here said “" that οὐ μὴ καταισχύνθῃ is meant to with Gerhard and Steiger, as one on which 
call back to mind the εἰς σωτηρίαν in ver. 2.”’ one stumbles and falls. This is not contained 

2 Schott rightly observes that κεφαλὴ γωνίας, in the idea, corner-stone, in itself, 


250 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


seems impossible,” if ἀπειθοῦσιν be taken as the dat. incommodi. So that it 
is in no way necessary to accept a construction so uncommon as that adopted 
by Hofmann, who considers the two clauses: tyiv .. . οἰκοδομοῦντες to be, 
with an omitted dv, in apposition to the following οὗτος, looking on 7 τιμῆ as 
a kind of personal designation of the stone, and separating the three follow- 
ing expressions: εἰς κεφ. ywr., 20. προκόμμ., and πέτρα σκανὸ. in such a way as 
to refer the first to believers, and the other two to unbelievers, although no 
such division is anywhere hinted at. 

Ver. 8. οἱ προσκόπτουσι links itself on to ἀπειθοῦσι, «.7.A.: “that is, to those 
who,” etc., not to what follows, as if εἰσι were to be supplied: “they who 
stumble are those who are,” etc. — προσκόπτειν has here the same meaning 
as that contained in the last words, but the turn of the thought is different ; 
there, it is shown what Christ is become to the unbelievers, namely, the 
ground >f their destruction; here, on the contrary, that they are really 
overtaken by this destruction; Lorinus explains προσκόπτουσι incorrectly : 
verbo offenduntur et scandalizantur, id blasphemant et male de illo loquuntur. — 
It is better to connect τῷ λόγῳ With ἀπειθοῦντες than with 
προσκόπτουσι (either : “ who at the word are offended,” or: “ who by the word 
suffer hurt”). For, on the one hand, the leading idea προσι. would be 
weakened by its connection with λόγῳ ; and, on the other, the nearer defini- 
tion requisite is supplied of itself from what precedes; it would, too, be 
inappropriate “that λογος should of a sudden take the place of Christ, who 
in ver. 7 is, as λίθος, the object of mpoox.” (Briickner). Wolf: qi impinguni, 
nempe: in lapidem illum angularem, verbo non credentes: quo ipso et offensio 
ipsa et ejus causa indicalur. — εἰς 6 καὶ ἐτεθησαν]. εἰς 6 not equal to ἐφ’ J, ‘*on 
account of which;” nor is it equal to εἰς ὃν (se. λόγον or λῖθον); Luther: 
“on which they are placed; ” or, similarly, Bolten: “they stumble at that, on 
which they should have been laid ” (he makes εἰς 6 refer to the omitted object 
of zpoox.), but it points rather to the end of ἐτεθησαν. --- τιθημι is here, as 
frequently in the N. T., ‘* to appoint, constituere” (cf. 1 Thess. v. 9). It is 
clear from the connection of this verse with the preceding, that εἰς 6 does not 
go back to ver. 5 (Gerhard: in hoe posilt sunt, videlicet, ut ipsi quoque in hunc 
lapidem fide aedificarentur). It may be referred either to ἀπειθεῖν (Calvin, 
Beza, Piscator, and others) or to προσκόπτειν and ἀπειθεῖν (Estius, Pott, De 
Wette, Usteri, Hofmann, Wiesinger,? etc.), or, more correctly, to mpooxorrew 


τῷ Adyw ἀπειθοῦντες]. 


1 The application to the Word or to Christ 
occurs already in the older commentators; 
thus Beda says: ‘‘in hoe positi sunt, i. e., per 
naturam facti sunt homines, ut credant Deo et 
ejus voluntati obtemperent;’’ and Nicol. de 
Lyra, applying it specially to the Jews: ‘‘illis 
data fuit lex, ut disponerentur ad Christum 
secundum quod dicitur Gal. iii. lex paedagogus 
noster fuit in Christo; et ipsi pro majore 
parte remanserunt increduli.” 

2 Different interpreters seek in various ways 
to soften the harshness of the idea here pre- 
sented. Thus Estius, by explaining ἐτέθησαν 
only of the permission of God; Pott, by 
paraphrasing the idea thus: ‘their lot seemed 


to bring this with it; ’’ Wiesinger, by asserting 
that ‘* the passage here speaks of the action of 
God as a matter of history, not of His eternal 
decrees.” But what justifies any such soften- 
ing down? While Hofmann, in the first 
edition of his Schriftbeweis, I., p. 210, says 
precisely, ‘‘that God has ordained them to 
this, that they should not become obedient 
to His word, but should stumble at it and fall 
over it;”? in the second edition, I., p. 287, it 
appears that the meaning only is, ‘‘ that the 
evil which befalls them in the’ very fact of 
their not believing, is ordained by God to 
those who do not obey His message of salva- 
tion, as a punishment of their disposition of 


CHAP. II. 9. a5 


(Grotius, Hammond, Benson, Hensler, Steiger, Weiss), since on the latter 
(not on ἀπειθεῖν) the chief emphasis of the thought lies, and εἰς ὃ, «.7.2., 
applies to that which is predicated of the subject, that is, of the ἀπειθοῦντες, 
but not to the characteristic according to which the subject is designated. 
The προσκόπτειν it is to which they, the ἀπειθοῦντες, were already appointed, 
and withal on account of their unbelief, as appears from the τῷ λόγῳ dred. 
This interpretation alone is in harmony with the connection of thought, for 
it is simply the πιστεύοντες and ἀπειθοῦντες, together with the blessing and 
curse which they respectively obtain, that are here contrasted, without 
any reference being made to the precise ground of faith and unbelief.1— 
Following the construction of ver. 7 adopted by him, Hofmann takes oi 
προσκόπτουσιν not as an adjunct referring to what precedes, but as protasis to 
the subsequent εἰς 6, which, according to him, contains the apodosis expressed 
in the form of an exclamation. This interpretation falls with that of ver. 7. 
Besides, it gives rise to a construction entirely abnormal, and of which there 
is no other example in the N. T., either as regards the relative pronoun,? or 
the method here resorted to, of connecting apodosis with protasis. The 
words are added by the apostle in order to show that the being put to shame 
of unbelievers, takes place according to divine determination and direction. 
Oecumenius is not justified by the context in laying special stress on the 
personal guilt of unbelief; or Aretius, in answering the question: quis autem 
illos sic posuit? by non Deus certe, sed Satan tales posuit. 

Ver. 9. ὑμεὶς δέ]. The apostle returns again to his readers, contrasting 
them with the unbelievers (not “ with the people of Israel,” as Weiss thinks) 
he had just spoken of. The nature of believers, as such, is described by the 
same predicates which were originally applied to the O. T. church of God 
(cf. Exod. xix. 5, 6), but have found their accomplishment only in that of 
the N. T. Schott justly remarks that “what in ver. 5 had been expressed 
in the form of an exhortation, is here predicated of the Christians as an 


mind.” Schott agrees with this view. But in 1 Vorstius, correctly : *‘ Increduli sunt desig- 


it the idea of ἐτέθησαν in relation to ἀπειθοῦν- 
tes is arbitrarily weakened; since Schott ex- 
pressly says that unbelievers, by their own 
state of mind, ‘‘appoint themselves to un- 
belief,’’ he can look on unbelief only in so far 
as the result of a divine decree, that God has 
determined faith to be impossible with a carnal 
disposition. But a limitation of this kind is 
here all the more inappropriate, that Peter in 
the passage makes no allusion to the disposi- 
tion which lies at the foundation of unbelief. 
Hofmann, in his commentary, says: ‘it is the 
word which is preached to them that they 
refuse to obey; but, by the very fact of their 
doing so, they stumble at Christ and fall over 
Him, as over a stone that lies in the way. 
Both are one and the same thing, named from 
different sides; the one time from what they 
do, the other from what is done to them.” 
Yet these are two different things; the one 
the cause, the other the effect. 


nati vel constituti ad hoc, ut poenam sive 
exitium sibi accersant sua incredulitate.” 

2 Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Matt. xxvi. 
50; but the interpretation of this passage is so 
doubtful that it cannot be relied upon; cf. the 
various interpretations in Meyer on this 
passage; in Winer, p. 157 (E. T., 167); in 
Buttmann, p. 217. 

8 Οὐχ ws ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τοῦτο ἀφωρισμέ- 
νοις, εἴρηται" οὐδεμία γὰρ αἰτία ἀπωλείας παρὰ 
τοῦ πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλοντος σωθῆναι βραβεύε- 
ται" ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἑαυτοῖς σκενή κατηρτικόσιν ὀργῆς 
καὶ ἡ ἀπείθεια ἐπηκολούθησε, καὶ εἰς ἣν παρεσ- 
κεύασαν ἑαυτοὺς τάξιν ἐτέθησαν. Thus also 
Didymus: “Δα non credendum ἃ semetipsis 
sunt positi;’? and Hornejus: ‘“constituti ad 
impingendum et non credendum ideo dicuntur, 
quia cum credere sermoni Dei nollent, sed 
ultro eum repellerent, deserti a Deo sunt et 
ipsius permissione traditi ut non crederent et 
impingerent.” 


952 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


already present condition.” — γένος ἐκλεκτόν, after Isa. xliii. 20 CTN2 “Dy, 
LXX.: γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν) ; cf. also Deut.evii. 6 ff.; Isa. xliii. 10, xliv. 1, 2, 
xlv. 4, ete. This first designation sets forth that the Christians, in virtue 
of God’s love, have been elected to be a people which no longer belongs to 
this world; cf. chap. i. 1. — βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, after Exod. xix. 6, LXX. (in 
Hebrew 073775 ΠΡΌ, “a kingdom of priests”); most interpreters take it 
as simple combination of the two ideas: “kings and priests.” Still, it is 
more correct to regard ἱεράτευμα as the principal idea (cf. ver. 3), and Basi- 
λειον aS @ More precise definition: “a royal priesthood.” Several commen- 
tators explain: “a priesthood possessing a royal character,” inasmuch as it 
not only offers up sacrifices (ver. 5), but exercises sway (over the world) ; 
cf. Rev. i. 6, v. 10 (Wiesinger). Weiss (p. 125), on the other hand: “a 
priesthood serving Jehovah the King, just as we speak of the royal house- 
hold.” Since all the other predicates express the belonging to God, the 
second explanation deserves the preference, only it must be modified so far 
as to include in βασίλ. not only the relation of service, but that also of belong- 
ing to and participation in the glory of the King founded thereon. Schott is 
not justified in assuming that Peter did not intend to convey the force of 
the Greek, but that of the Hebrew expression, 0°39 ΠΡ 5, namely: “a 
kingdom which consists of priests.” It is inadequate to understand, with 
Hofmann, by the term: “a priesthood of princely honors,” or βασίλειον as 
equal to, magnificus, splendidus (Aretius, Hottinger, etc.), or to find in it the 
expression of the highest freedom? (subject only to God) (De Wette). — 
ἔθνος ἅγιον in like manner after Exod. xix. 6, LXX. (wp 12). —Aade εἰς 
περιποίησιν]. Corresponding passages in the O. T. are Deut. vii. 6 (730 Dy), 
Mal. iii. 17 (77930), and especially Isa. xliii. 21, LXX.: λαόν μου ὃν περιεποιη- 
σάμην τὰς ἀρετάς μου διηγεῖσθαι (ΞΟ. ὍΠΗ 7 ‘AIS? N-DY). The words fol- 
lowing show that the apostle had this last passage chiefly in his mind: still 
it must be noted that this idea is contained already in Exod. xix. 5 (λαὸς 
περιούσιος). περιποίησις is strictly the acquiring (Heb. x. 39); here, what is 
acquired, possession ; neither destinatus (Vorstius) nor positus (Calovius) is to 
be supplied to εἰς, they would not correspond with the sense; εἰς is here to be 
explained from Mal. iii. 17, LXX.: ἔσονταί μοι. . . εἰς περιποΐησιν ; ON εἶναι εἰς, 
ef. Winer, p. 173 (E. T., 183 f.); in sense it is equivalent to λαὸς περιούσιος, 
Tit. ii. 14. Schott attributes to this expression an eschatological reference, 
explaining: “a people destined for appropriation, for acquisition ;” this is 
incorrect, for, understood thus, it would fall out of all analogy with the other 
expressions. The apostle does not here state to what the Christian Church 
is destined, but what she already is; “her complete liberation from all cosmic 
powers is not,” as Briickner justly remarks, “an acquiring on God’s side, but 
only the final redemption of those whom He already possesses.” Schott’s 
assertion, that in the N. T. περιποίησις has always an eschatological reference, 
is opposed by Eph. i. 14; cf. Meyer in loc. — Although a difference of idea 


1 Clemens Al. interprets: ‘ regale, quoniam fit orationibus et doctrinis, quibus adquiruntur 
ad regnum vocati sumus et sumus Christi animae, quae afferuntur Deo.” 
sacerdotium autem propter oblationem quae 


CHAP. II. 9. 253 


founded on the etymologies of γένος, ἔθνος, λαός is not to be pressed; yet it 
must be observed that by these expressions, as also by ἱεράτευμα, Christians 
are spoken of as a community united together in itself, and although diverse 
as to natural descent, they, as belonging to God (and all the names employed 
by the apostle point to this), form one people, from the fact that God has 
joined them to Himself. — ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ, «.7.2.]. ὅπως connects 
itself, after Isa. xlili. 21, in the first instance with what immediately goes 
before, in such a way, however, that the preceding ideas point towards it as 
their end. — τὰς ἀρετάς; thus the LXX. translate nbnn in the above-men- 
tioned passage (in general, in the LXX., ἀρετῇ occurs only as the translation 
of 1, Hab. iii. 3, Zech. vi. 13; ἀρεταὶ as the translation of ndaa, Isa. 
ml 85. ἸΘῪ elite 21, andor mda, Isa. xiii. 7); accordingly the Alexan- 
drine translators understand by ὙΠ and N95 in the passages in question, 
not the “glory or praise” of God, but the object of the glory, that is, the 
excellence or the glorious attributes of God. Peter took the word, in this 
meaning of it, from them.? — ἐξαγγειλητε]. Cf. Isa. xlii, 12, LXX.: τὰς ἀρετὰς 
αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς νῆσοις ἀπαγγελοῦσι ; ἐξαγγέλλειν ; Strictly, tis qui foris sunt nunciare 
quae intus fiunt (Xen., Anab., ii. 4, 21), is employed for the most part without 
this definite application; in the LXX. the translation of 135; in the N. T. 
in this passage only; it is possible that Peter thought of the word here in 
its original force (Bengel, Wiesinger). — τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος, i.e., 
Θεοῦ, ποῦ Χριστοῦ: καλεὶν is almost uniformly attributed to God. — σκότους, not 
equivalent to miseria (Wahl), but is used to designate the whole unhappy 
condition of sin and }ying in which the natural and unregenerate man is 
(ef. Col. i. 18); here employed, no doubt, with special reference to the former 
heathenism of the readers. — εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φὼς]. To render φῶς by 
cognitio melior (Wahl), is arbitrarily to weaken the force of the word; it 
is rather the complete opposite of σκότος, and denotes the absolutely holy 
and blessed nature —as αὐτοῦ shows—of God. The Christian is translated 
from darkness to the light of God, so that he participates in this light, and 
is illumined by it. Schott incorrectly understands by σκότος : “ heathen 


1 Steiger draws the following distinction: 
“γένος is the race, people of like descent; 
ἔθνος, a people of like customs; λαός, people 
as the mass.’’ Schott thinks that ἔθνος in- 
cludes within it a reference to the intellectual 
and moral characteristics of the people, and 
that Aaos points to its being gathered together 
under one Lord. In this urging of distinc- 
tions — which are not even correctly drawn — 
is to be found the reason why Schott ex- 
changes the Greek expression βασιλ. ἱεράτευμα 
for the Hebrew, because ἱεράτευμα is not 
analogous to the other three designations, 
whilst βασίλεια is 80, as a national commu- 
nity. — Peter certainly, in selecting these ex- 
pressions, did not reflect on the original 
distinction of the ideas, but made use of them 
simply as they were presented to him in the 
Orn: 


2 It is arbitrary to understand the word to 
mean only this or that attribute of God; nor 
must the meaning, as is done by Gerhard, be 
limited to the ‘‘virtntes Dei, quae in opere 
gratuitae vocationis et in toto negotio salutis 
nostrae relucent.” Schott’s interpretation is 
linguistically incorrect: ai ἀρεταί equal to 
τὰ μεγαλεῖα τ. ©. (Acts ii. 11), ‘the great 
deeds of God.’’ Cornelius a Lapide entirely 
misses the point in explaining: ‘ virtutes, 
quas Christus in nobis operatur, humilitatem, 
caritatem,” etc.; and Salmeron: “ virtutes 
Christi, quas in diebus carnis suae exhibuit.” 

8 Wiesinger disputes this interpretation, 
holding that what is meant is ‘that light 
which has appeared to the world in Christ;” 
but is not this light the light of God? — Cer- 
tainly φῶς is here not i.q. Χριστός. According 
to De Wette, αὐτοῦ designates the light as the 


254 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

humanity left to itself,” and by τὸ... αὐτοῦ φῶς : “the church;” the church 
lives in God’s light, but it is not the light of God. —xatéiv is here applied, 
as it is by Paul, to the effectual, successful calling of God. — θαυμαστόν (cf. 
Matt. xxi. 42) denotes the inconceivable glory of the φῶς Θεοῦ. 

Ver. 10. A reference to Hos. ii. 25, linking itself on to the end of the 
preceding verse, in which the former and present conditions of the readers 
are contrasted. This difference the verse emphasizes by means of a simple 
antithesis. The passage in Hosea runs: ὌΝ) SAS) WI) No-nN sADNY 
NAS“ DY, LXX.: ἀγαπῆσω τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην καὶ ἐρῶ τῷ ov λαῷ μου" λαός μου εἰ σύ 
(the Cod. Alex. and the Ed. Aldina have at the commencement the addi- 
tional words: ἐλεήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠλεημένην). ---- οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαός]. Grotius, Steiger, 
Weiss, incorrectly supply: Θεοῦ. λαός 18 here used absolutely (Bengel: ne 
populus quidem, nedum Dei populus). οὐ belongs not to ἦτε to be supplied, 
but is closely connected with λαός, equivalent to “no-people.” In like man- 
ner οὐκ ἠλεημένοι as equal to “ not-obtained mercy.” “The meaning is not that 
they once were not what they now are, but that they were the opposite of 
it” (Wiesinger). But οὐ... λαός is a people who, in their separation from 
God, are without that unity of life in which alone they can be considered by 
Him as a people; or, more simply, who do not serve God who is the true 
King of every people; cf. Deut. xxxii. 21, and Keil in loc. De Wette is 
hardly satisfactory: “they were not a people, inasmuch as they were with- 
out the principle of all true nationality, the real knowledge of God,” etc. ; 
now they are a people, even a people of God, inasmuch as they not only serve 
God, but are received also by God into community of life with Himself. — 
οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, viv δὲ éAendévtec]. The part. perf. denotes their former and 
ended condition. Standing as it does here not as a verb, but as a substan- 
tive, like ob . . . λαός, it cannot be taken as a plusquam-perf. part. (in oppo- 
sition to Hofmann). The aorist part. points, on the other hand, to the fact 
of pardon having been extended: “once not in possession of mercy, but now 
having become partakers of it” (Winer, p. 8221 [E. T., 343]). 


work of God, and consequently a different 
thing from the φῶς which He is Himself. 

1 Τὴ the original passage these words apply 
to Israel; but from this it does not follow that 
Peter writes to Jewish Christians. For if 
Paul —as he clearly does — applies the passage 
(Rom. ix. 25) to the calling of the heathen, 
then Peter surely, with equal right, could use 
it with reference to the heathen converts. 
They had been, in its full sense, that which 
God says to Israel, *Dy-N; and they had 
become that to which He would again make 
Israel, His people. It must be observed, 
however, that God in that passage addresses 
Israel as “D-NY, only because it had for- 
saken Him and given itself up to the worship 
of Baal, and consequently incurred punish- 
ment. Apart from this, Israel had always 
remained the people of God. — If only Jewish 
converts were meant here, then Peter would 


assume that they in their Judaism had been 
idolaters, which is absolutely impossible, or at 
least Peter must then have said why they, 
who as Israelites were the people of God, 
could not in their former state be regarded as 
such. Accordingly, οὐ λαός is here in no way 
applicable to Israel, but only to the heathen; 
and it is not (as Weiss maintains, p. 119) 
purely arbitrary to apply the passage, in oppo- 
sition to its original sense, to heathen Chris- 
tians. Whilst Briickner says only that the 
words cannot serve to prove the readers to 
have been Jews formerly, Wiesinger rightly 
and most decidedly denies the possibility of 
applying them to Jewish converts; so, too, 
Schott. — Weiss’s assertion is by no means 
justified by his insisting (Die Petr. Frage, 
p. 626) that nothing tenable has been brought 
forward against it, 


CHAP.) II: 11, 12: 255 

Vv. 11, 12. A new exhortation: the central thought is expressed in the 
beginning of ver. 12. The apostle, after describing its peculiarly lofty 
dignity, considers the Christian Church in its relation to the non-Christian 
world, and shows how believers must prove themselves blameless before it 
by right conduct in the different relations of human life. The condition 
necessary for this is stated in ver. 11.—’Ayamyroi]. This form of address 
expresses the affectionate, impressive earnestness of the following exhorta- 
tion. — παρακαλῶ (sc. ὑμᾶς) ὡς παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήμους]. Cf. Ps. xxxix. 18, 
LXX. — ὡς, as in i. 14. — πάροικος, cf. i. 17, in its strict sense; Acts vii. 6, 29, 
equal to inguilinus, he who dwells in a town (or land) where he has no civil 
rights; ef. Luke xxiv. 18. In Eph. ii. 19 it stands as synonymous with 
ξένος, of the relation of the heathen to the kingdom of God. — παρεπίδημος, 
ef. i. 1. The home of the believer is heaven, on earth he is a stranger. 
Calvin: sic eos appellat, non quia a patria erularent, ac dissipati essent in diver- 
sis regionibus, sed quia filii Dei, ubicunque terrarum agant, mundi sunt hospites ; 
ef. Heb. xi. 18-15. A distinction between the two words is not to be pressed 
here; the same idea is expressed by two words,in order to emphasize it the 
more strongly. Luther inexactly translates παρεπίδημοι by “ pilgrims.” — 
Even if ἀπέχεσθαι be the true reading, the words ὡς παροίκους, «.7.A., must be 
connected with παρακαλῶ (as opposed to De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger), for 
they show in what character Peter now regarded his readers (Hofmann)? 
in relation to the following exhortations, and have reference not simply to 
the admonition ἀπέχεσθαι; as Weiss also (p. 45) rightly remarks. Probably, 
however, ἀπέχεσθε is the original reading, and was changed into the infinitive 
in order to make the connection with παρακαλῶ more close. ἀπέχεσθαι pre- 
sents the negative aspect of sanctification, as chap. 11. 1: ἀποθέμενοι. --- τῶν 
σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν : similar expressions in Gal. vy. 10; Eph. ii. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 18. 
The émfvuia are σαρκικαΐί, because they have their seat in the σάρξ. Wiesinger 
improperly says that “the lusts which manifest themselves outwardly ” are 
here meant, for al/ ἐπιθυμίαι tend to, and do, manifest themselves outwardly, 
if there be no ἀπέχεσθαι. Schott assumes, without reason, that the ἐπιθυμίαι 
are here considered “as something outside of the Christian community, and 
manifesting itself only in the surrounding heathen population;” they are 
indeed peculiar to the unbelieving world; but the Christian, too, has them 
still in his σάρξ, though he can and should prevent them from having a deter- 
mining power over him, inasmuch as in the world over which they rule he is 
ἃ πάροικος καὶ taper idnuoc.2 This sequence of thought lies plainly indicated in 
the close connection of the exhortation with what precedes (as opposed 
to Hofmann). —uirwe¢ στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς is not a definition of the 
σαρκικαΐ, but as αἵτινες, equal to “as those which,” shows, explains the nature 
of the ἐπιθυμίαι capxexai, thus giving the reason of the exhortation. — στρατεύειν 


1 In the former exhortations Peter had 
regarded them as τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, as such who 
call on God as Father, as regenerate. 

2 Calvin interprets: ‘‘carnis desideria in- 
telligit, non tantum crassos et cum pecudibus 
communes appetitus, sed omnes animae nos- 


trae affectus, ad quos natura ferimur et 
ducimur.” This goes too far, as it would 
demand the destruction not alone of the 
striving against the Spirit, natural to man in 
his sinful condition, but of the entire life of 
the soul. Cf. Gal. ν. 17. 


256 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


is not “to lay siege to” (Steiger), but “to war,” “fight against,” as in Jas. 
iv. 1 (Rom. vii. 23: ἀντιστρατεύεσθαι). ---- ψυχῆ has here its usual meaning; it 
is neither vita et salus animae (Hornejus, Grotius), nor ratio (Pott: libidines, 
quae nos impellunt ad peragenda ea, quae rationi contraria sunt); nor does it 
mean: “the new man” (Gerhard: totus homo novus ac interior, quatenus est 
per Spiritum s. renovatus), nor: the soul, “in so far as it is penetrated by 
the Holy Spirit” (Steiger), nor: “life as determined by the new Ego” 
(Schott); but it is here simply, in contradistinction to σῶμα, the spiritual 
substance of man of which Peter says that it must be sanctified (chap. i. 22), 
and its σωτηρία is the end of faith (chap. 1. 9); thus also De Wette-Briickner, 
Wiesinger, Hofmann, Fronmiiller. In the natural man the ψυχῆ is under 
the power of the ἐπιθυμίαι capxixai (which according to Jas. iv. 1 have their 
dwelling ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν; cf. also Rom. vii. 23); in him who is regenerate, it 
is delivered from them, yet the ἐπιθυμίαι seek to bring it again into subjec- 
tion, so that it may fail of its σωτηρία ; ---- in this consists the στρατεύεσθαι κατὰ 
τῆς ψυχῆς. --- Ver. 12. τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν (chap. i. 15, 17) ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἔχοντες 
καλήν]. ἐν τοῖς ἔθν. : “ among the Gentiles;” for the churches to whom Peter 
wrote were in Gentile lands. —éyovrec καλῆν; Luther, inexactly: “lead a 
good mode of life;” καλήν is a predicate: “having your mode of life good (as 
one good);” cf. chap. iv. 8. —éyovrec (antithesis to ἀπέχεσθε, ver. 11) is not 
here put for the imperative, but is a participle subordinate to the finite verb; 
if ἀπέχεσθαι be read, there is here, as in Eph. iv. 2, Col. iii. 16, an irregularity 
in the construction by which the idea contained in the participle is signifi- 
cantly made prominent. —iva ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσιν, «.7.2., “that in the matter in 
which they revile you as evil-doers they may, on the ground of the good works they 
themselves have beheld, glorify God,” i.e., in order that the matter which was 
made the ground of their evil speaking, may by your good works become to 
them the ground of giving glory to God. —iva states the purpose; not for 
ὥστε: ἐν ὦ is not ἐν ᾧ χρόνω, as in Mark ii. 19 (Pott, Hensler), for the καταλαλεῖν 
and the δοξάζειν cannot be simultaneous; nor is it pro eo quod (Beza), such a 
construction has no grammatical justification; but ἐν specifies here, as in 
verb. affect., the occasioning object (cf. chap. iv. 4), and the relative refers 
to a demonstrative to be supplied, which stands in the same relation to doéa- 
(ωσι as ἐν ᾧ to καταλαλοῦσιν. It is not then τοῦτο, but ἐν τούτῳ, which is to be 
supplied (Steiger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann). If τοῦτο were to be sup- 
plied it would be dependent on ἐποπτεύσαντες ; but such a construction is 
opposed by the circumstance that it is not this participle, but δοξάζωσι, which 
forms the antithesis to καταλαλοῦσι. The participle is interposed here abso- 
lutely (as in Eph. iii. 4: ἀναγινώσκοντες), and ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων is connected 
with δοξάζωσι, the sense being: “on account of your good works.” Steiger 
specifies the καλὰ ἔργα as that which occasions the καταλαλεῖν, ---- and later the 
οοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν, --- but the subsequent ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων does not agree with 
this; De Wette gives: “the whole tenor of life;” the connection with what 
precedes might suggest the ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκ. ἐπιθυμιῶν 1 but it is simpler, 


1 So formerly in this commentary, with the heathen; for it is precisely this abstinence 
observation: ** Of this ἀπέχεσθαι Peter says which gives the Christian life its peculiar 
(chap. iv. 3, 4), that it seemed strange to the character, and distinguishes it from that of 


CHAP. II. 11, 12. 257 


with Hofmann, to understand by it generally the Christian profession. — 
With κακοποιοί, οἷ. ver. 14, iv. 15; John xviii. 80. Briickner, Wiesinger, 
Weiss (Ὁ. 367), justly reject the opinion of Hug, Neander, etc., that κακοποιός 
here, in harmony with the passage in Suetonius, Vit. Ner., c. 16: Christiani 
genus hominum superstitionis novae et MALIFICAE, is equivalent to ‘‘ state 
criminal.’? In the mouth of a heathen the word would signify a criminal, 
though not exactly a vicious man; one who had been guilty of such crimes 
as theft, murder, and the like (cf. iv. 15), which are punished by the state 1 
(cf. ver. 14). --- ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων]. The καλὰ ἔργα, in the practice of which 
the ἀναστροφὴ καλῆ of the Christians consists, are here presented as the motive 
by which, when they see them, the heathen are to be induced to substitute 
the glorifying of God for their evil speaking; as the Christians too, on their 
part, are often exhorted to holiness of life, that thus they may overcome the 
opposition of the Gentiles; cf. chap. iii. 2. Hofmann incorrectly interprets 
ἐκ τ. Kad. ἔργων ἐποπτεύοντες : “if the heathen judge of your Christianity by 
your good works;” for ἐποπτεύειν does not mean “to judge of.” With ἐκ τ. 
Kaa. ἔργων... δοξάσωσι τ. Θεόν, comp. Christ’s words, Matt. v. 16, which, as 
Weiss not without reason assumes, may have here been present to the 
apostle’s mind. — ἐποπτεύοντες “goes back in thought to the καλὰ ἔργα, in 
harmony with the linguistic parallel in iii. 2 and the grammatical parallel 
in Eph. iii. 4” (De Wette). It makes no essential difference in the sense, 
whether the present or, with the Rec., the aorist be read (see critical remarks). 
The word occurs only here and in iii. 2, where it is used with the accusative 
of the object (for the subst. ἐπόπτης, see 2 Pet. i. 16). It expresses the idea 
of seeing with one’s own eyes, more strongly than the simple ὁρᾷν. There is 
no reference here to the use of the word as applied to those who were initi- 
ated into the third grade of the Eleusinian mysteries. — ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς]. 
ἐπισκοπῇ is in the LXX. a translation of 179, the visitation of God, whether 
it be to bless (Job x. 12) or to chastise (Isa. x. 3); ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς is there- 
fore the time when God gives salvation, or the time when He punishes, be it 
in the general sense (Beda: dies extremi judicii), or more specially with refer- 
ence either to the Christians or the heathen. — The connection of thought 
seems to point decisively to that time as meant when the καταλαλοῦντες shall 
be brought to repentance and faith, that is, to “the gracious visitation of 
the heathen” (Steiger); as ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς cov, Luke xix. 44, is used 
with regard to the Jews. This interpretation is to be found already in the 
Fathers and in many later commentators, as Nicol. de Lyra, Erasm., Hem- 


the heathen. It became the ground of evil 
report for this reason, that immoral motives 
were supposed to be concealed behind it; and 
this was all the more natural that the Christian 
had necessarily to place himself in opposition 
to many of the ordinances of heathen life, and 
that from a Gentile point of view his obedience 
to the will of God must have appeared a 
violation of the law. This prejudice could 
not be better overcome than by the practice 
of good works; hence, τὴν ἀναστρ. vp.... 


καλήν, and the reference to it in ἐκ τ. Kad. 
ἔργων.᾽ 

1 Schott’s assumption, ‘*that it was the 
burning of Rome that first increased the uni- 
versal hatred and aversion of the Christians to 
a special accusation of criminal and immoral 
principles,” is unwarranted. He attempts to 
justify it only by charging Tacitus with an 
error in the account he gives of the accusations 
brought by Nero against the Christians. 


258 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


ming, Vorstius, Beza, Steiger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, ete. On the 
other hand, Oecumenius, Wolf, Bengel, etc., apply the ἐπισκοπῇ not to God, 
but understand by it the ἐξέτασις of the Christians at the hands of the heathen. 
But for this there is absolutely no ground. Luther’s interpretation, “when 
it shall be brought to light,” is wrong; it is equivalent to that of Gerhard: 
simplicissime accipitur de visitatione illa divina, qua Deus piorum, innocentiam 
variis modis in lucem producit. — Akin to this is the view held by some of the 
scholastics, that ἐπισκοπή is to be understood of the trial of the Christians by 
affliction; see Lorinus in loc. 


REMARK. — At variance with this explanation is that given by Schott, who 
interprets the passage in this way: ‘‘ In order that the heathen may glorify God 
in the day of judgment, from this that (by the fact that) they slander you as 
evil-doers in consequence of your good works, of which they are witnesses.”’ 
The idea that the undeserved calumnies of the heathen serve at last to the 
glorification of God, is in itself right and appropriate as a basis for the exhorta- 
tion given in the context. The resolution, too, of ἐν 6 into ἐν τούτῳ, ὅτι, has 
grammatically nothing against it ; Meyer even allows it to be possible in Rom. 
ii. 1; cf. Heb. ii. 18, where Liinemann has recourse to a like construction, 
though with a somewhat inadequate explanation. Still, more than one objec- 
tion may be urged against this interpretation: (1) A reference is given to. 
δοξάζειν different from what is contained in καταλαλεῖν, inasmuch as it is taken, 
as in 1 Cor. vi. 20, in the sense of ‘‘by action ;”’ (2) δοξάζειν must be thought 
of as something which the heathen bring about ‘ without knowing or willing ”’ 
it, whereas the apostle does not let fall a hint of any such nearer definition ; 
(3) δοξάζειν can only in a loose sense be conceived of as an act of the heathen ; 
it is simply the result of what they do (of their καταλαλεὶν) ; and (4) In com- 
paring these words with those of Christ (Matt. v. 16): ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ 
ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσι τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, the thought cannot be got rid 
of that Peter had this passage here in his mind. Schott’s objection, that 
“δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν is a strange and, specially here, a doubly inappropriate 
expression for conversion to Christianity, whilst the connection of the verb 
thus taken with ἐξ, as equal to ‘in consequence of,’ is a hard and inelegant 
construction,’’ amounts to very little, since in the acceptation of the passage 
which he calls in question the verb is by no means made to bear any such 
meaning. 


Vv. 13,14. The apostle now goes on to name the different relations of 
life, ordained of God, in which the Christian should show his holy walk. 
First of all, an exhortation to obey those in authority. — ὑποτάγητε : the aor. 
pass. is used here, as it often is, with a middle, not a passive — as Wiesinger 
thinks —force. It is not: “be made subject,” but “make yourselves subject” 
(cf. ταπεινώθητε, chap v. 6).1 The more liable liberty in Christ was to be 
misunderstood by the heathen, and even to be abused by the Christians 
themselves, the more important it was that the latter should have inculcated 


1 Winer is wrong in attributing (p. 245 86, but is right in ascribing it to παρεδόθητε, 
[E. T., 261]) a passive signification to this Rom. vi. 17. 
ταπεινώθητε, as also to προσεκλίθη, in Acts v. 


CHAP. II. 13, 14. 259 
upon them as one of their principal duties this ὑποτάσσεσθαι (ver. 18, chap. 
iii. 1) in all circumstances of life. — πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει : κτίσις is here, in 
accordance with the signification peculiar to the verb κτίζειν : “to establish, 
to set up,” the ordinance, or institution (“an ordinance resting on a particular 
arrangement,” Hofmann). In connection with the attribute ἀνθρωπίνη, this 
expression seems to denote an ordinance or institution established by men 
(so most expositors, and formerly in this commentary). But it must be 
noted that κτίζειν (and its derivatives) are never applied to human, but only 
to divine agency; besides, the demand that they should submit themselves 
to every human ordinance would be asking too much. It is therefore 
preferable to understand, with Hofmann, by the term, an ordinance (of God) 
applying to human relations (“regulating the social life of man” ).! By 
the subsequent εἴτε, . . εἴτε, the expression is referred in the first instance 
to the magistracy; but this does not justify the interpretation of it as equal 
directly to “authority,” or even persons in authority (Gerhard: concretive 
el personaliter: homines, qui magistratum gerunt). That Peter’s exposition of 
the idea had direct reference to persons in authority, is to be explained from 
the circumstance that the institution possessed reality only in the existence 
of those individuals. At variance with this view is De Wette’s (following 
Erasmus, Estius, Pott) interpretation of the expression: “to every human 
creature, i.e., to all men.”” Not only, however, the singular circumlocution : 
κτίσις ἀνθρωπίνη for ἄνθρωπος (for which De Wette wrongly quotes Mark xvi. 
15, and Col. i. 23), but the very idea that Christians should be subject to 
all men, — and in support of it no appeal can be made either to chap. v. 5, 
or to the following exhortation: πάντας τιμῆσατε, ---- ἰδ decisive against this 
view. The fact that Peter places the general term πᾶσα xriow first, is 
explained most naturally in this way: that it was his intention to speak 
not of the magistracy merely, but also of the other institutions of human 
life. — The motive for the submission here demanded is given by διὰ κύριον, 
1.6., Χριστόν (not Θεόν, as Schott thinks), which must be taken to mean: 
“because such is the will of the Lord,” or, with Hofmann: “out of consid- 
eration due to Christ, to whom the opposite would bring dishonor.” The 
latter, however, is the less likely interpretation. Still less natural is it to 
say, with Wiesinger, that this adjunct points to the θεῖον in ordinances under 
which human life is passed. Incorrectly Huss: propter imitationem Dei, 1.e., 
Christi. —In the enumeration which follows, the apostle is guided by the 
historical conditions of his time. It must be remarked that ὑποτάσσεσθαι is 


1 This view avoids the certainly arbitrary 
interpretation given, for example, by Flavius, 
who applies the expression specially to life 
connected with the state. He says: “dicitur 
humana ordinatio ideo quia politiae mundi 
non sunt speciali verbo Dei formatae, ut vera 
religio, sed magis ab hominibus ipsorumque 
industria ordinatae.” 

2 It is arbitrary to regard κτίσις (with 
Luther, Osiander, etc.) as meaning the laws 
given by the magistrates. 


8 Briickner endeavors, indeed, to defend 
De Wette’s interpretation: yet he decides to 
understand the expression in question as 
“every ordinance of human civil society,” 
and solves the difficulty presented by the 
adjective ἀνθρωπίνη (comp. with Rom. xiii. 1) 
by remarking that “ the ordinances of national 
life which haye been developed historically 
and by human means possess a diyine element 
in them.” 


200 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


inculcated not only with regard to the institutions of the state, but to the 
persons in whom these are embodied, and this quite unconditionally. Even 
in cases where obedience, according to the principle laid down in Acts iv. 
19, is to be refused, the duty of the ὑποτάσσεσθαι must not be infringed upon. 
— εἴτε βασιλεὶ]. βασιλεύς is here the naine given to the Roman emperor; cf. 
Joseph., De Bello Jud., v. 15, § 6. Bengel: Caesari, erant enim provinciae 
romanae, in quas mittebat Petrus. — ὡς ὑπερέχοντι: ὡς here also assigns the 
reason ; ὑπερέχειν expresses, aS in Rom. xiii. 1, simply the idea of sovereign 
power; non est comparatio cum aliis magistratibus (Calvin). In the Roman 
Empire the emperor was not merely the highest ruler, but properly speaking 
the only one, all the other authorities being simply the organs through 
which he exercised his sway. — Ver. 14. εἴτε ἡγεμόσιν]. ἡγεμόνες praesides pro- 
vinciarum, qui a Caesare mittebantur in provincias (Gerh.).— ὡς δ αὐτοῦ, ete. : 
dc’ αὐτοῦ does not, as Gerh., Aretius, and others take it, refer to κύριον, but to 
βασιλεῖ. The 7yeu., although ὑπερέχοντες too, are 80 not in the same absolute 
sense as the βασιλεύς. They are so in relation to their subordinates, but not 
to the βασιλεύς. --- εἰς ἐκδίκησιν κακοποιῶν, ἔπαινον δὲ ἀγαθοποιῶν is joined gram- 
matically to πεμπομένοις, not to ὑπερέχοντι also (Hofm., Schott); yet, from the 
fact that the ἡγεμόνες are sent by the βασιλεὺς εἰς ἐκδίκησιν, x.7.2., it is implied 
that the latter, too, has an office with respect to ἐκδίκησις, «.7.A.1 — Oecumenius 
arbitrarily narrows the thought when he says: ἔδειξε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Πέτρος τίσι καὶ 
ποίοις ἄρχουσιν ὑποτάσσεσθαι δεῖ, ὅτι τοῖς τὸ δίκαιον ἐκδικοῦσιν. The apostle insists 
rather, without reserve, on submission to the ἡγεμόνες, because (not if) they are 
sent by the emperor to administer justice.? — ἐκδίκησις, here, as often, “pun- 
ishment ;” ἔπαινος, not precisely “reward,” but “ laudatory recognition.” — 
ἀγαθοποιός is to be found only in later authors, in N. T. ἅπ. Aey. The subs. 
occurs chap. iv. 19. 

Ver. 15. ὅτι gives the ground of the exhortation: ὑποτάγητε, k.7.A. — οὕτως 
ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ: With οὕτως; cf. Winer, p. 434 (E. T., 465), Buttm., 
p- 115 (E. T., 131): “of such a nature is the will of God.” Schott gives the 
sense correctly: “In this wise is it with the will of God.” The position of 
the words is opposed to a connection of o tw¢ with ἀγαθοποιοῦντας (Wiesinger, 
Hofmann). — ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ; 86., ὑμᾶς; ἀγαθοποιεῖν, in Mark 111. 4; Acts xiv. 
17, the word has reference to deeds of benevolence. Here, on the other 
hand, it is used in a general sense: to do good, with special reference to the 
fulfilment of the duties towards those in authority. — φιμοῦν τὴν τῶν ἀφρόνων 
ἀνθρώπων ἀγνωσίαν ; φιμοῦν (cf. 1 Tim. v. 18) here in the cognate sense of to put 
to silence, Wiesinger ; “ the ἀγνωσία is here conceived of as speaking; cf. v. 12: 
καταλαλοῦσι ὑμ. ὡς κακοποιῶν." --- ἀγνωσία (except here, only in 1 Cor. xv. 34) is 


the self-caused lack of any comprehension of the Christian life. 


1 Hofmann is consequently wrong in assert- 
ing that in this connection ‘‘ the duty of sub- 
mission to him who makes over the exercise 
of his power to others is derived from and 
based alone on his possession of that power, 
whilst submission to those to whom that 
power has been entrusted originated in, and is 


Because 


founded on, the moral purpose for which that 
is done.” 

2 Calvin very aptly puts it: ‘ Objici possit; 
reges et alios magistratus saepe sua potentia 
abuti; respondeo, tyrannos et similes non 
facere suo abusu, quia maneat semper firma 
Dei ordinatio.” 


CHAP. II. 16, 17. 261 
they are without this, they in their foolishness (hence ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων) 
imagine that its characteristic is not ἀγαθοποιεῖν, but κακοποιεῖν. Beda incor- 
rectly limits οἱ ἄφρονες ἄνθρωποι to those persons in authority ; but the refer- 
ence is rather quite general to the καταλαλοῦντες, ver. 12. 

Ver. 16. ὡς ἐλεύθεροι is not, as Lachm., Jachmann, Steiger, Fronmiiller 
think, to be joined with what follows (ver. 17), but with a preceding 
thought; either with. ἀγαθοποιοῦντας (Beda, Luther, Calvin, Wiesinger, 
Hofm.), or with ὑποτάγητε (Chrys., Oecum., Gerhard, Bengel, De Wette, 
Schott, ete.). The latter of these connections deserves the preference, not 
because in the former a change of construction would take place, but because 
the special point to be brought out here was, that the freedom of the Chris- 
tians was to be manifested in submission to (heathen) authorities. What 
follows shows this, inasmuch as those Christians who had not attained unto 
true freedom might easily be led to justify their opposition to those in 
power on the ground of the liberty which belonged to them in Christ. ὡς 
ἐλεύθεροι states the position which the Christians are to take up inwardly 
towards the authorities; their subjection is not that of δοῦλοι, since they 
recognize them as a divine ordinance for the attainment of moral ends.?— 
καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχοντες τῆς κακίας τὴν ἐλευθερίαν]. Kai 15 epexegetical: “and 
that,” since what follows defines the idea ἐλεύθεροι first negatively and then 
positively. —dc belongs not to ἐπικάλυμμα, but to ἔχοντες : “and that not as 
those who have.” — ἐπικάλυμμα is the more remote, τὴν ἐλευθερίαν the proximate, 
object of ἔχοντες : “ who have the ἐλευθερία as the ἐπικάλυμμα τ. Kak.” — ἐπικάλυμμα, 
ἀπ. Aey.; for its original meaning, cf. Exod. xxvi. 14, LXX.; here used 
metaphorically (cf. Kypke, in loc.). The sense is: “not as those to whom 
their freedom serves as a covering for their κακία" (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 19; Gal. 
v. 13), i.e., who seek to conceal their wickedness by boasting of their 
Christian freedom. This is the exact reverse of the Pharisaism of those 
who seek to conceal the wickedness of the heart by an outward conformity 
to the law. —dA2’ ὡς δοῦλοι Θεοῦ expresses positively the nature of the truly 
free. True liberty consists in the δουλεία Θεοῦ (Rom. vi. 16, ff.); it refers 
back to the τὸ θέλημα τοὺ Θεοῦ, and further still ἰο. διὰ κύριον. 

Ver. 17. Four hortatory clauses suggested to Peter by the term ἀγαθοποι- 
οὔντας ; in the last he returns, by way of conclusion, to the principal theme. 
In the first three there is a climax.? — πάντας τιμήσατε: πάντας Must not, with 


1 Hofmann justly says: “ We cannot think 
of joining ver. 16 with ver. 17, for its contents 
would not suit πάντας τιμήσατε, ---- even should 
it be connected with this- only (Fronmiiller), 
which is quite impossible, — not to speak of 
τὴν ἀδελφότητα ΟΥ̓ τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε.᾽᾽ 

2 It is not probable that Peter here refers, 
as Weiss (p. 349) thinks, to the words of 
Christ (Matt. xvii. 27), since they apply to 
circumstances altogether different from those 
mentioned here; see Meyer in loc. 

8 To distribute these four exhortations over 
“the two provinces of life, the natural and 
civil, and the spiritual and ecclesiastical com- 


munities ” (Schott), is warranted neither by 
what precedes nor by any thing the clauses 
themselves contain. — Hofmann, who denies 
the climax, determines the relation of the four 
maxims to each other in a highly artificial 
manner. He holds that the second sentence 
is in antithesis to the first, and the fourth to 
the third; that the first is akin to the fourth, 
and the second to the third; that in the first 
stress is Jaid on πάντας, whilst in the second, 
on the other hand, it lies not on ἀδελφότητα, 
but on ἀγαπᾶτε, and that in the first antithesis 
it is the first member that is emphatic, in the 
second it is the last. 


262 -THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


Bengel, be limited to those quibus honos debetur, Rom. xiii. 7,1 nor to those 
who belong to the same state (Schott); it expresses totality without any 
exception. — τιμᾷν is not equivalent to ὑποτάσσεσθαι (De Wette); but neither 
is it equal to civiliter tractare (Bengel); the former is too strong, the latter 
too weak; it is the opposite, positively stated, of καταφρονεῖν, and means: to 
recognize the worth (τιμὴ) which any one possesses, and to act on the recog- 
nition (Briickner, Weiss, Wiesinger, Schott). This. exhortation is all the 
more important for the Christian, that his consciousness of his own dignity 
can easily betray him into a depreciation of others. It refers to the τιμῆ 
which is due to man as man, and not first in respect of any particular 
position he may hold.?— τὴν ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπᾶτε). ἀδελφότης, also in chap. v. 9, 
corresponding to our “ brotherhood,” i.e., the totality of the Christian breth- 
ren, cf. ἱεράτευμα, vv.5,9. The apparent contradiction of Matt. v. 44, here 
presented, where love to enemies is also enjoined, is to be explained on the 
following principle: that the ἀγάπη is differently conditioned, according as 
it has different objects. In perfect harmony with its inmost nature, it can 
exist only between Christians, for only among them is there community of 
life in God; ef. chap. i. 22. Pott interprets ἀγαπᾷν here superficially by 
“entertain good-will to.” — τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε : cf. chap. i. 17 ; a command not 
only of the Old, but of the New Testament, inasmuch as a lowly awe before 
the holy God is an essential feature of the filial relation to God. — τὸν 
βασιλέα τιμᾶτε]. Reiteration of the command (ver. 13) as a conclusion to the 
whole passage; cf. Prov. xxiv..21, φοβοὺ τὸν Θεὸν, υἱὲ, καὶ βασιλέα. ---- τιμᾶτε has 
here the same meaning as previously: “show to the king the respect which 
pertains to him as king;” what that is, the apostle has explained in ver. 13. 
Hornejus ? incorrectly thinks that in the conjunction of the last two com- 
_mands, he can here discover an indication of the limits by which obedience 
to the king is bounded. — The difference in the tenses of the imperative, in 
the first exhortation the imperat. aor., in the three others the imperat. pres., 
is to be regarded as accidental, rather than as in any way arising from the 
substance of the command.? 

Ver. 18. An exhortation to the slaves, extending from this verse to the 
end of the chapter. — oi οἰκέται]. οἰκέτης, properly speaking, “a domestic,” a 
milder expression for δοῦλος. It is improbable that Peter employed this 
term in order to include the freedmen who had remained in the master’s 
house (Steiger). — oi oix. is vocative ; nor is chap. 1. 3 (as Steiger thinks) 
opposed to {Π]5. --- ὑποτασσόμενοι]. It is quite arbitrary to supply ἣτε (Ocecu- 
menius, etce.), or to assert that the participle is used here instead of the 
imperative. The participle rather shows that the exhortation is conceived 


° 

1 In like manner, Hornejus: ‘* non de om- 
nibus absolute loquitur, quasi omnes homines 
etiam pessimi honorandi sint, sed de iis, quibus 
honor propter potestatem quam habent, com- 
petit.” 


2 Flacius: “ unicuique suum locum et debita 
officia exhibete.” 


8 Explicat Petr. quomodo Caesari parendum 


sit, nempe ut Dei interim timori nihil deroge- 
tur. 

4 Hofmann’s view is purely arbitrary: 
‘that in the foremost clause the aorist is put 
because, in the first place, and chiefly, it is 
required to honor all; and after this, that the 
Christian should love bis brethren in Christ.” 
Nor can it be at all supported by Winer’s 
remarks, p. 294 (E. T., 314), 


CHAP. II. 19. 263 


of as dependent on a thought already expressed; not on ver. 17 (De Wette), 
but on ver. 13, which vy. 11 and 12 serve to introduce ; ὑποτάγητε. .. κύριον, 
the institution of the household impliedjin the relation of servant to master, 
is comprehended in the general term πᾶσα ἀνθρωπ. Ktiow.—év παντὶ φόβῳ]. 
φόβος (vid. i. 17) is stronger than reverentia; it denotes the shrinking from 
transgressing the masters will, based on the consciousness of subjection; 
ef. Eph. vi. 5.1 Doubtless this shrinking is in the case of the Christian based 
on the fear of God; but the word φόβος does not directly mean such fear, as 
Weiss (p. 169) holds and seeks to prove, especially from the circumstance 
that Peter in chap. iii. 6, 14, condemns the fear of man, forgetting, however, 
that this fear too may be of different kinds; cf. in loco. — παντὶ is intensive.' 
πᾶς φόβος is every kind of fear; a fear wanting in nothing that goes to make 
up true fear. — τοῖς δεσπόταις]. Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 1; Tit. ii. 9, equals τοῖς κυρίοις, 
Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22. — ob μόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοὶς. 
The moral conduct of the servant, which consists in ὑποτάσσεσθαι towards the 
master, must remain unchanged, whatever the character of the latter may 
be; the chief emphasis, however, rests here on ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ox. —dyafoi here 
is equal to “kind ;” for ἐπιεικῆς, οἵ. 1 Tim. iii. 3; 1t does not mean “ yield- 
ing” (Fronmiiller), but, properly speaking, one who “acts with propriety,” 
then “ gentle.” — σκολιός, literally “crooked,” “bent,” the opposite of straight, 
denotes metaphorically the perverse disposition; Phil. ii. 15, synonymous 
with διεστραμμένος ; in Prov. xxviii. 18, ὁ σκολιαῖς édoig πορευόμενος forms the 
antithesis to ὁ πορευόμενος dixaiwe (cf. Luke 111. 5). It has the same force in 
the classics (Athen., xv. p. 695; σκολιὰ φρονεῖν, opp. to εὐθέα φρονεῖν). It de- 
notes, therefore, such masters as conduct themselves, not in a right, but in a 
perverse manner, towards their servants—are hard and unjust to them; 
Luther’s “ capricious” is inexact.? 

Ver. 19. τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις, ei]. The ground of the exhortation. τοῦτο refers. 
to the clause beginning with e/.— χάρις has not the special meaning “ grace” 
here, as if it were to be explained, either with the older commentators, 
gratiam concilians; or as if by it were to be understood “the gift of grace” 
(Steiger: “it is to be regarded as grace, if one can suffer for the sake of 
God;” so, too, Schott), or “the condition of grace” (Wiesinger: “in the 
ὑπομένειν is manifested the actual condition of grace”); for this expression 
is not parallel with κλέος, ver. 12: and how can a summons be issued in a 
manner so direct, to the performance of a duty, by representing it either as 
a gift of grace or a proof of a state of grace? Besides, Wiesinger alters the 
term “grace” into “sign of grace.”—Some commentators, on account of 
ver. 20, explain χάρις as synonymous with κλέος, but without any linguistic 
justification. In profane Greek, χάρις denotes either the charm or the 
loveliness, or also the favor which one person has for another (to which are 
linked on the meanings, expressions of good-will and thanks). Both senses 


1 Thus, too, in substance, Schott: ‘‘ Fear in cumstances, but is not to be concluded from 
general, as it is determined by the circum- the adject. σκολιός (as opposed to Schott). 
stances here mentioned.” 8. Thus already Oecumenius (Calvin: ‘ idem-———__ 
8 That Peter made special reference to valet nomen gratiae quod laudis; gui patienter } hig 
heathen masters, lies in the nature of the cir- ferunt injurias, ii laude digni swnt).” ν 


264 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


are to be found in the Scriptures.! If the first signification be adopted, the 
enduring of the adversity of which Peter here speaks is characterized as 
something lovely; and so Cremer (see under χάρις, p. 576) seenis to take 
it. But it is more natural to hold by the second sense, and to explain * this 
is favor,” as equal to “this causes favor.” Several interpreters explain χάρις as 
equal directly to “delight,” substituting for the substantive the adjective 
ἐς well-pleasing,” and supplying παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ from ver. 20. Thus Gerhard: 
hoc est Deo gratum et acceptum; De Wette: “Favor with God, i.e., well- 
pleasing before God;” so, too, Hofmann. But both of these are open to 
objection. Hofmann no doubt gives as the ground of his supplement: 
“that the slave who lived up to the apostle’s injunction has to look for the 
approval of none.” This is, however, surely an unjustifiable assertion. It 
is not clear why Peter did not add the words supplied if he had them in his 
mind; χάρις and κλέος in ver. 20 are therefore —in consideration of vv. 12 
and 15—to be taken quite generally. The following clause indicates a 
good behavior, by which the καταλαλία of the heathen is to be put to silence. 
εἰ dui συνείδησιν Θεοῦ ὑποφέρει, k.7.2.]. εἰ refers back to τοῦτο; διὰ συνείδησιν Θεοῦ 
is placed first by way of emphasis. συνείδησις Θεοὺ is neither “ God’s knowl- 
edge of us” (Morus: quia Deus conscius est tuarum miseriarum; similarly 
Fronmiiller; “on account of the knowledge shared by God, since God 
knows all”), nor is it “conscientiousness before God” (Stolz); but Θεοῦ is 
the object. genit. (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 7; Heb. x. 2), therefore the meaning is: 
the (duty-compelling) consciousness of God.? A metonymy does not require 
to be assumed (Grotius: per metonymiam objecti dicitur conscientia ejus, quod 
guis Deo debet). Steiger introduces what is foreign to it when he extends 
the idea so as to include the conscious knowledge of the divine recompense. 
In διὰ συνειδ, Θεοῦ is expressed substantially the same thought as in ὡς Θεοῦ 
δοῦλοι, ver. 16, and διὰ τ. κύριον, ver. 18 ; διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν Without Θεοῦ is to be 
found in Rom. xiii. 5. — ὑποφέρει τις λύπας]. ὑποφέρειν : “to bear the burden put 
on one;” the opposite of succumbing under a burden, cf. 1 Cor. x. 13; 2 
Tim. iii. 11; nevertheless, the apostle seems here to have in mind more the 
antithesis to being provoked to anger and stubbornness (Hofmann). — λύπαι, 
here, outward affiictions. — πάσχων ἀδίκως, “ whilst (not although) he suffers 
wrong (from the master, i.e., undeserved on the part of the slave).” —It is 
not suffering itself, but patient endurance in the midst of undeserved suffering, 
and that διὰ συνείδησιν Θεοῦ, which Peter calls a χάρις. -- This thought, general 
in itself, is here applied to the relation of servant to master. 

Ver. 20. ποῖον yap κλέος]. Gerhard: interrogatio respondet h. t. negationi; 
this interrogation brings out the nothingness, or at least the little value, of 
the object in question; cf. Jas. iv. 14; Luke vi. 92. --- κλέος, not 86. ἐνώπιον 
τοῦ Θεοὺ (Pott), but quite generally, for the thought “refers back to the point 
of view, stated in vy. 12-15, from which this exhortation is given” (Wie- 


1 χάρις has the first meaning (Ps. xlv. 3; etc.). Of. besides, Cremer and Wahl: Clavis 
Prov. i. 9, x. 82, etc.; also Ecclus. vii. 19, etc.; libr. V. T. apocrypbi. 
in the N. T., Luke iv. 22; Col. iv. 6, etc.). 2 Caloy: “ quia conscius est, id Deum velle 
The second signification (Prov. xxii. 1, ete.; et Deo gratum esse.’”? 80, too, De Wette, 
in the N. T., Luke i. 30, ii. 52; Acts ii. 47, Schott, etc. 


CHAP. II. 21. 265 
singer).—e ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ κολαφιζόμενοι broueveite]. The two participles 
stand in the closest connection with each other, so that ἁμαρτάνειν is to be 
conceived as the cause of the κολαφίζεσθαι. Luther's translation is accordingly 
correct: “if ye suffer punishment on account of your evil deeds;” the only 
fault to be found with this is, that it weakens the force of the idea ὑπομένειν. 
- ὑπομένειν is synonymous with ὑποφέρειν; the sense is: “it is no glory to 
show patience in the suffering of deserved punishment.” The view of De 
Wette, that Peter referred only “to the reluctant, dull endurance of a crim- 
inal who cannot escape his punishment,” misses the apostle’s meaning, and 
is correctly rejected by Briickner and Wiesinger. Steiger remarks justly: 
“that, when any one endures patiently deserved punishment, he is only 
performing a duty binding on him by every law of right and authority.” 
ὑπομενεῖτε is in the future with reference to the standpoint of the exhorta- 
tion (Wiesinger). — κολαφίζειν : apud LXX. non occurrit, in N. T. generaliter 
pro plagis ac percussionibus. Matt. xxvi. 67; 1 Cor. iv. 11; 2 Cor. xii. 7 
(Gerh.); the strict signification is “to give blows with the fist, or slaps 
on the ear.” Bengel: poena servorum eaque subita.— ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ 
πάσχοντες ὑπομενεῖτε]. The interpretation of Erasmus: si quum beneficiatis 
et TAMEN affligamini, suffertis, is incorrect, for between ἀγαθοπ. and racy. 
there exists the same relationship as between ἁμαρτάνοντες and κολαφιζόμενοι ; ¥ 
Luther, correctly: “if ye suffer on account of good-doing;” οἵ, iii. 17. — 
τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις παρὰ Θεῷ before these words — γάρ is the correct reading — the 
apodosis taken out of ποῖον κλέος, “this is true ptaise,” must be added to 
what precedes, and these words form the basis of an argument in which 
τοῦτο refers to εἰ dyaforowbvrec , . . ὑπομενεῖτε. The meaning is: because this 
in God’s sight is a χάρις (not equal to “in the judgment of God,” cf. Luke ii. 
52), therefore it is a κλέος. 

Ver. 21 gives the ground of the exhortation to bear undeserved suffering 
patiently, by a reference to the sufferings of Christ. — εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐκλῆθητε]. 
εἰς τοῦτο refers to εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες ... ὑπομενεῖτε. Many interpreters incor- 
rectly make it apply only to suffering as such; but, as Hemming rightly 
remarks: omnes pii vocatt sunt, ut patienter injuriam ferant. —'The construc- 
tion with sic occurs frequently; cf. Col. iii. 15; 2 Thess. ii. 14. —In har- 
mony with the connection, οἱ οἰκέται is to be thought of as the subject to 
ἐκλήθητε;; accordingly it is the slaves in the first instance, not the Christians 
in general, who are addressed (as in chap. iii. 9, 14, 17); but as this κληθῆναι 
applies to them not as slaves but as believers, it holds true at the same time 
of all Christians. — ὅτε καὶ Χριστὸς ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν]. ὅτι: such suffering is 
part of a Christian’s calling, for Christ also suffered: ἔπαθεν is here the em- 
phatic word; and with it καί also must be joined (which Fronmiiller errone- 
ously interprets by “even”). Wiesinger incorrectly takes καὶ with ἔπαθεν 


1 Nor is this relation sufficiently perceived 
by Schott in his explanation: ‘If they show 
patience under ill-treatment which accompa- 
nies good conduct.” In urging against the 
interpretation given, that “if ἀγαθοποιεῖν 
apply to the labor of servants, then, that 


which the slave suffers is not caused by his 
actions,’? Hofmann has failed to observe (1) 
that the context does not render the idea of 
servants’ work only necessary; (2) that the 
well-doing of the Christian was not always in 
harmony with heathen views (cf. chap. iv. 4). 


200 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in this sense, that, as Christ suffered for us, “so we should endure 
affliction for Him, for His sake, and for His honor and glory in the world,” 
thus introducing a thought foreign to the context. The obligation to suffer 
under which we who are Christ’s people are laid, from the very fact that 
Christ also suffered, is for us all the greater that the sufferings of Christ 
were ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (not ἀνθ’ ἡμῶν, but “for our advantage”), and therefore such 
as enable us to follow the example which He has left us in His sufferings. 
Inasmuch as ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν implies that Christ suffered not for His own sins, but 
for ours, we are no doubt justified in recognizing these sufferings as unde- 
served, but not in concluding, with Hofmann, that ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν is meant to 
mark only the undeservedness of Christ’s sufferings. — ὑμῖν ὑπολιμπάνων ὑπο- 
γραμμόν]. ὑπολιμπάνω, ἅπ. Aey. Another form of ὑπολείπω (used of the leaving 
behind at death, Judith viii. 7). Bengel: in abitu ad patrem. ὑπογραμμός 
(Gm, Aey.): specimen, quod imitentur, ut pictores noviltis exemplaria dant, ad quae 
inter pingendum respiciant: equivalent in sense to ὑπόδειγμα, John xiii. 15 
(τύπος; 2 Thess. iii. 9). It is not Christ’s life in general that is here pre- 
sented by way of example, but the patience which He showed in the midst 
of undeserved sufferings.1 The participle is connected with ἔπαθεν ὑπ. ὑμ. as 
giving the nearer definition of the latter: He thus suffered, as in doing 
so to leave you an example, withal to the end that, etc.2— ἵνα ἐπακολουθῆσητε 
τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ]. Sicut prior metaphora a pictoribus et scriptoribus, ita haec 
posterior petita est a viae duce (Gerhard); with ἐπακολ. cf. 1 Tim. v. 10, 24. 
- ἴχνος, besides here, in Rom. iv. 12 (στοιχεῖν τοῖς ἴχνεσι) and 2 Cor. xii. 18 
(περιπατεῖν τοῖς ἴχνεσι). 

Ver. 22. The first feature in the exemplary nature of Christ’s sufferings: 
His innocence. — After Isa. 1111. 9, LAX. : ἀνομίαν οὐκ ἐποίησε, οὐδὲ δόλον ἐν τῷ 
στόματι αὐτοῦ (Cod. Alex., οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στ. αὑτοῦ). Gerhard: nec verbo 
nec facto unquam peccavit. The second half of the sentence expresses truth 
in speech. With δόλος, ef. chap. ii. 1; John i. 48. For the difference be- 
tween εὑρίσκεσθαι and εἶναι, cf. Winer, p. 572 (E. T., 616). 

Ver. 23. The second feature: the patience of Christ in His sufferings. 
A reference, however slight, to Isa. 1111, 7, cannot but be recognized. — ὃς 
λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει, πάσχων οὐκ ἠπείλει]. De Wette and Wiesinger 
rightly draw attention to the climax between Aodop, and πάσχων, ἀντελοιὸ. and 
ἠπείλει; λοιδορία omnis generis injuriae verbales ; παθήματα omnis generis injuriae 
reales (Gerhard). — ἀντιλοιδ, ἀπ. λεγ.} cf. ἀντιμετρέω, Luke vi. 388. — ἠπείλει is 
here used of threat of vengeful recompense. The announcements of divine 
judgment on unbelievers, to which Christ more than once gave expression, 
are of a different nature, and cannot be considered as an ἀπειλεῖν, in the 
sense in which that word is here used. Comp. with this passage the exhor- 


1 Wherever Scripture presents Christ as an 
example, it does so almost always with refer- 
ence to His self-abasement in suffering and 
death (Phil, ti. 5; John xiii. 15, xv. 12; 1 John 
iii. 16; Heb. xii. 2), Only in 1 John ii. 6 is 
Christ presented as an example in the more 
general sense. 

2 Hofmann wrongly asserts that “ ἵνα stands 


only in place of an infinitive clause, as after 
ἐντολή (John xiii. 84), βουλή (Acts xxvii. 42),” 
inasmuch as “‘ ὑπογραμμός is no more than a 
direction to do likewise.’’ But this interpre- 
tation of ὑπογραμμός is erroneous, and there- 
fore iva ἐπακολουθήσητε cannot be resolved 
into an infinitive clause. 


: CHAP. II. 24. 267 
tation of the apostle, chap. 111. 9. — παρεδίδου δὲ τῷ κρίνοντι δικαΐωςἾ. παρεδίδου 
not in a reflexive sense: “He committed Himself” (Winer, p. 549 [E. T., 
590]; De Wette), neither is causam suam (Gerhard, ete.) nor κρίσιν (from 
κρίνοντι) to be supplied; the supplement is rather λοιδοροῦσθαι and πάσχειν 
(Wiesinger, Schott). Luther’s translation is good: “He left it to Him.” 3 
—Didymus arbitrarily understands παρεδίδου of Christ’s prayer for His 
enemies ;? the meaning is rather, that Christ left it to the God who judges 
justly, to determine what should be the consequences of the injustice done 
to Him on those who wrought it. That His desire was only that they should 
be punished, is not contained in παρεδίδου (similarly Hofmann). Conse- 
quently the reference formerly made in this commentary to Jer. xi. 20, 
xx. 12, as illustrative of the passage, is erroneous. 
ef. chap. i. 17: τὸν ἀπροσωπολήπτως κρίνοντα, “a direct designation of God, 
whose just onion ἢ is the outcome of His being” (Wiesinger). 

Ver. 34. A further expansion of the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ver. 21. — ὅς τὰς ἁμαρτίας 
ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνῆνεγκεν, κιτ.}.: “ Who himself bore our sins on His body to the tree.” 
— ὅς, the third relative clause, though a climax too, cannot fail to be recog- 
nized here: He suffered innocently, — patiently (not requiting evil for evil), 
—vicariously, for us, still it must not be asserted that this third clause 
predicates any thing of Christ in which He can be an example for us 
(Hofmann); the thought here expressed itself contradicts this assertion. — 
The phraseology of this verse arose from a reference to the passage in Isa. 
liii., and the actual fulfilment of the prophecy herein contained. The 
words of that chapter which were chiefly present to the mind of the apostle 
are those of ver. 12, LXX., καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκε (NW) ; cf. also 


With τῶ δικαίως κρίνοντι; 


ver. 11: καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει (930°), and ver. 4: οὗτος τ. ἁμαρτίας 
ἡμῶν φέρει (SY). The Hebrew 82 with the accus. of the idea of sin, 
therefore “to bear sin,” is equivalent to, “to suffer the punishment for sin,” 
either one’s own or that of another. Now, as ἀνήνεγκε is in the above-quoted 
passage a translation of 8, its meaning is: “ He suffered the punishment 


for the sins of many.” 4— This suffering of punishment is, in the case of 


1 In Mark iy. 29, too, to which De Wette 
appeals, παραδιδόναι has no reflexive force; 
see Meyer on this passage. 

2 The Vulg. strangely translates, “ tradebat 
judicanti se injuste;” according to which 
Lorinus interprets: ‘tradidit se Christus 
sponte propriaque voluntate tum Judaeis, tum 
Pilato ad mortem oblatus.” Cyprian (De Bono 
Patientiae) and Paulinus (Zp. 2) quotes the 
passage as it stands in the Vulg. Augustin 


(Tract. in John xxi.) and Fulgentius (Ad 
Trasimarch., lib. I.), on the other hand, have 
juste. 


8 From the fact that Christ’s prayer is not 
mentioned here, De Wette unwarrantably con- 
cludes that it was unknown to the writer of 
the epistle. 

4 It admits of no doubt that xvi in con- 
nection with ROT} or 1, has the meaning 


above given; cf. Lev. xix. 17, xx. 19, xxiv. 15; 
Num. v. 81, xiv. 34; Ezek. iv. 4, xiv. 10, xvi. 
58, xxifi. 35, ete. (Lam. ν. 7, 9D); generally, 
indeed, the LXX. translate this iv} by 
λαμβάνειν, but also by κομίζειν and dmoddpery} 
in the passage quoted, Isa. liii. 4, by φέρειν ; in 
Num. xiv. 33, as in Isa. liii. 12, by ἀναφέρειν. 
This proves how unwarranted Hofmann 
(Schriftbeweis, II., 1, p. 465, 2d ed.) is in 
saying, ‘‘ that in view of the Greek translation 
of Isa. liii. 11, 12, it is arbitrary to assume 


that ἀναφέρειν means simply ‘to carry.’” Of 
course every one knows that in and of itself 
ἀναφέρειν does not mean “to carry;” but 


from this it does not follow that the LXX, did 
not use it in this sense in the phrase above 
alluded to, the more so that they attribute to 
the word no meaning opposed to its classical 
usage; cf. Thue. iii. 18, κινδύνους avadép.; 


208 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
the Servant of God, of such a nature that by it those whose the sin is, and 
for whom He endures the punishment, become free from that punishment; 
it is therefore a vicarious suffering. Since, then, Peter plainly had this 
passage in his mind, the thought here expressed can be no other than this: 
that Christ in our stead has suffered the punishment we have merited 
through our sins, and so has borne our sins. But with this the subsequent 
ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, Which means not “on the tree,” but “on to the tree,” does not 
seem to harmonize. Consequently it has been proposed to take ἀναφέρειν in 
the sense which it has in the phrase: ἀναφέρειν τι ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον (cf. Jas. 
ii, 21; Lev. xiv. 20; 2 Chron. xxxv. 16; Bar. i. 10; 1 Mace. iv. 53); cf. 
ver. 5, where τὸ ξύλον would be conceived as the altar.2 But against this 
interpretation, besides the fact that dvadép. is thus here taken in a sense 
different from that which it has in Isa. liii., there are the following objec- 
tions: (1) That in no other passage of the N. T. is the cross of Christ 
represented as the altar on which He is offered ;? (2) That neither in the 
O. T. nor in the N. T. is sin anywhere spoken of as the offering which is 
brought up to the altar.* ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον might be explained by assuming a 
pregnant construction, as in the Versio Syr., which runs: bajulavit omnia 
peccata nostra eaque sustulit in corpore suo ad crucem,® that is: “bearing our 
sins He ascended the cross.” But the assumption of such a construction is 
not necessary, since ἀναφέρειν can quite well be taken to mean “ carrying up,” 
without depriving the word of the signification which it has in the passage 
in Isaiah, since “carrying up” implies “carrying.” In no other way did 


Pol. i. 80, φθόνους καὶ διαβολὰς avadép., see 
Pape, 8.0. ἀναφέρω, and Delitzsch, Komment. 
5. Br. an die Hebr., p. 442.— Doubtless nw 
Pyne (Lev. x. 17) is said of the priests bear- 


ing away sin (making atonement), but there 
the LXX. translate nw by ἀφαιρεῖν. Plainly 
there can here be no “allusion to the meaning 
**to forgive sin.”’ 

1 Weiss is inaccurate when he asserts 
(p. 265) that the passages, Lev. xix. 17; Num. 
xiv, 38; Lam. y. 7; Ezek. xviii. 19, 20, allude 
to a vicarious suffering. These passages, in- 
deed, speak of a bearing of the punishment 
whicb the sins of others have caused; but this 
is suffering with, not instead of, others, with- 
out those who have done the sin being freed 
from its punishment. 

2 Gerhard: ‘ Crux Christi fuit sublime illud 
altare, in quod Christus se ipsum in sacrificium 
oblaturus aseendit, sicut V. Testamenti sacri- 
ficia altari imponebantur. 

8 Schott, whilst admitting the above, asserts 
“that it will hardly be contradicted that in all 
the passages which speak of Christ’s death on 
the cross as a sacrifice, the cross must be pre- 
supposed to be that which served as altar.’ 
This is decidedly to be contradicted, the more 
ΒΟ that the animal sacrificed suffered death 
not wpon, but before, the altar. 


4 If ἀναφέρειν be here taken as equivalent to 
**to offer sacrifice,” as in Heb. vii. 27, not only 
would the thought — which Delitzsch (p. 440) 
terms a corrupt one — arise, ‘‘ per semet ipsum 
immolavit peccata nostra,” but ἐπὶ to ξυλον 
would then have to be interpreted, “‘on the 
cross.”? Luther: ‘‘who Himself offered in 
sacrifice our sins on His body on the tree.” — 
Here, too, Schott admits what is said above, 
but seeks to destroy its force as a proof, by 
claiming for ἀναφέρειν the sense, ‘‘ to present 
or bring up in offering,’ at the same time 
supplying —as it seems—as the object of 
offering, the body of Christ, which the ex- 
pression of the apostle in no way justifies. 

5 Schott brings the baseless accusation 
against the circumlocution of the Syr. transla- 
tion, ““ that in it peccata is to be taken differ- 
ently in the first clause from the second;” in 
the former, as equivalent to “the punishment 
of our sin;”’ in the latter, as ‘* the sin itself; ” 
for peccata has the same meaning in both 
members, although the bearing of the sins 
consists in the suffering of the punishment for 
them. Comp. Num. xiv. 33, where in the ex- 
pression ἀνοίσουσι τὴν πορνείαν ὑμῶν, the word 
πορνεία has by no means the meaning ‘‘ pun- 
ishment for fornication,” although ἀναφέρειν 
τὴν πορνείαν means as much as “to suffer the 
punishment for fornication.” ᾿ 


CHAP. II. 24. 269 


Christ bear our sins up on to the cross than by suffering the punishment for 
our sins in the crucifixion, and thereby delivering us from the punishment. 
The apostle lays special stress on the idea of substitution here contained, 
by the addition of αὐτός, which, as in Isa. 1111. 11, stands by way of emphasis 
next to ἡμῶν; but by ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ---- not “in,”? but “on His body” — 
we are reminded that His body it was on which the punishment was accom- 
plished, inasmuch as it was nailed to the cross, and died thereon. It is 
quite possible that this adjunct, as Wiesinger assumes, is meant at the same 
time to serve the purpose of expressing the greatness of that love which 
moved Christ to give His body to the death for our sins; but that there is 
in it any special reference to the sacramental words of the Lord (Weiss, 
p. 273), is a conjecture which has nothing to support it. The addition of 
ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον is explained by the fact itself, since it is precisely Christ’s death 
on the cross that has redeemed us from the guilt and power of our sins. 
Peter also uses the expression τὸ ξύλον to denote the cross, in his sermons, 
Acts v. 50, x. 89. It had its origin in the Old-Testament phraseology 7}}, 
rendered ξύλον by LXX., denoting the pole on which the bodies of executed 
criminals were sometimes suspended; cf. Deut. xxi. 22, 23; Josh. x. 26. 
Certainly in this way attention is drawn to the shame of the punishment 
which Christ suffered; but it is at least doubtful, since there is no reference 
to it in any way, whether Peter, like Paul in Gal. iii. 18, used the expression 
with regard to the curse pronounced in Deut. xxi. 22 (as Weiss, p. 267, 
emphatically denies, and Schott as emphatically asserts). Bengel is entirely 
mistaken in thinking, that by the adjunct ἐπὲ τὸ ξύλον the apostle alludes to 
the punishment of slaves (ligno, cruce, furca, plecti soliti erant servi). 


REMARK 1, — The interpretation of many of the commentators is wanting 
in the necessary precision, inasmuch as the two senses, which ἀναφέρειν has in 
the different phrases, ἀναφέρειν τὰς ἁμαρτίας and ἀναφέρειν τι ἐπὶ τ. θυσιαστήριον, 
are mixed up with each other. Vitringa (Vix wno verbo ἔμφασις vocis ἀναφέρειν 
exprimi potest. Nota ferre et offere. Primo dicere voluit Petrus, Christum 
portasse peccata nostra, in quantum illa ipsi erant imposita. Secundo ita 
tulisse peccata nostra, ut ea secum obtulerit in altari), while drawing, indeed, a 
distinction between the two meanings, thinks that Peter had both of them in 
his mind, which of course is impossible. — Hofmann explains ἀναφέρειν... ἐπὶ 
τὸ ξύλον on the analogy of the phrase, ἀναφέρειν τι ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, without, 
however, understanding the cross as the altar; the meaning then would be: 
“Ἢ lifted up His body on to the cross, thereby bearing up thither our sins, 
that is to say, atoning for our sins.’’ Although Hofmann admits that Peter 
had in his mind the passage in Isaiah, he nevertheless denies that ἀνήνεγκε has 
here the same meaning as there. In his Schriftbeweis, 1st ed., he gives a 
similar interpretation, only that there he says: ‘‘He took up our sins with 
Him, and so took them away from us.”? He, however, justly adds that ἀναφέρειν 
has the same meaning here as in Heb. ix. 28. Wiesinger has adopted this 
interpretation, as also, in substance, Delitzsch, Hebraerbrief, p. 442 f. In the 
2d edition of the Schriftbeweis, Hofmann has withdrawn this explanation ; but, 


1 So, too, Schott, who interprets ἐν τῷ σώματι as equal to “ἴῃ His earthly bodily life’’ (!). 


210 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


on the other hand, he erroneously asserts that ἀναφέρειν here is ‘‘ the ἀναφέρειν 
of Heb. vii. 27.’’ — Schott justly combats Hofmann’s view, that the sufferings of 
Christ for our sins consisted essentially only in what befell Him as the result 
of our sins, and maintains, in opposition to it, the substitution of Christ. His 
own interpretation, however, of our passage is equally inadmissible, since he 
attributes to ἀναφέρειν the meaning, ‘‘to bring up or present in offering,” yet 
adding to the idea of ‘‘offering’’ an object other than ἁμαρτίας, which stands 
with ἀνήνεγκεν, thus giving to the one word two quite different references. 
Schott makes σῶμα Χριστοῦ the object of ‘‘ offering,’”’ taking it out of the supple- 
mentary clause, ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ; but this he is the less justified in doing, that 
he explains these words by ‘‘in His earthly corporeal life.”” — This is not the 
place to enter fully into Schott’s conception of the propitiation wrought by 
Christ’s death on the cross. ‘Though it contains many points worthy of notice, 
it is of much too artificial a nature ever to be considered a just representation 
of the views of the apostle. — Luthardt interprets : ‘‘ He bore His body away 
from the earth up to God. No doubt it was not an altar to which Christ 
brought His body up ; but the peculiarity lies precisely in this, that His body 
should at the same time hang on the accursed tree.’’ ‘‘ Away from the earth to 
God,” is evidently an addition ; and had Peter wished to emphasize the cross 
as the accursed tree, he would have added τῆς καταρᾶς,1 

REMARK 2. — This interpretation agrees substantially with that given by 
De Wette-Briickner and Weiss; yet De Wette’s reference to Col. ii. 14 is 
inappropriate, inasmuch as that passage has a character entirely different, both 
in thought and expression, from the one here under consideration. Weiss is 
wanting in accuracy when he says that “‘ Christ ascended the cross, and there 
bore the punishment of our sins,”’ since already in the sufferings which preceded 
’ the crucifixion, the bearing of our sins took place. — Nor can it be conceded to 
these commentators, that the idea of sacrifice was absent from the conception 
of the apostle. Its existence is erroneously disputed also in Isa. liii., in spite of 
the DWN, ver. 10. No doubt prominence is given, in the first instance, to the 
idea of substitution ; but Weiss ought not to have denied that this thought is 
connected in the mind of the prophet, as in that of the apostle, with the idea of 
sacrifice, especially as he himself says that the idea of substitution is that upon 
which the sin-offering is based (Lev. xvii. 11). And was there any other sub- 
stitutionary bearing of sin than in the sacrifice? It must not, however, be 
concluded that each word in the expression, and especially ἐπὲ τὸ ξύλον, must 
have a particular reference to the idea of sacrifice. 


ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι]. Oecumenius: ἀπογενόμενοι " ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἀποθα- 
γνόντες ; οἵ. Rom. vi. 2, 11 (Gal. ii. 19). ‘Bengel’s rendering: γίνεσθαι τινός 
Jfieri alicujus dicitur servus, ἀπὸ dicit sejunctionem; Germ. “to become with- 
out,” which Weiss (p. 284) supports, is inappropriate here, since ἀπογίγνεσθαι 
in this sense is construed with the genitive. For the dative, see Winer, 
Ῥ. 898 (E. T., 427 f.). ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις corresponds to the foregoing τὰς ἁμαρτίας 
ἡμῶν. ‘The use of the aor. part. shows that the being dead unto sin is the 


1 Pfleiderer (p. 422) is entirely unwarranted life,” and “ that by this removal is meant, that 
in maintaining the sense to be: *‘ That Christ, we free our moral life and conduct from 
by His death on the cross, took away, removed sin’’(!). 
our sins, so that they no longer surround our 


CHAP. II. 25. 271 


condition into which we are introduced by the fact that Christ τὰς ἁμαρτίας 
ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν, κιτ., The actions of the Christians should correspond 
with this condition; this the apostle expresses by ἵνα... τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν ; 
ef. Rom. vi. — δικαιοσύνη means here not “justification or righteousness, as a 
condition of him whose sins are forgiven,” but it is the opposite of ἁμαρτία; 
“ righteousness which consists in obedience towards God and in the fulfilling 
of His will.” The clause, introduced here by the final particle ἕνα (as in 
i. 18), does not give the primary aim of Christ’s substitutionary death, 
that, namely, of reconciliation; but further the design, that of making free 
from the power of sin. Weiss (p. 285) is wrong in thinking that Peter 
“did not here conceive the redemption as already completed in principle by 
the blood of Christ,” but “accomplished in a purely physiological way, by the 
impression produced by the preaching of His death and the incitement to 
imitation which! it gave.” Thus Pfleiderer also. The refutation of this 
is to be found in what follows. —od τῷ μώλωπι (αὐτοῦ) ἰάθητε]. Isa. lili. 5, 
LXX.: return to the direct form of address: μώλωψ is, properly speaking, 
marks left by scourging (Sir. xxviii. 17, πληγὴ μάστιγος ποιεὶ μώλωπας) ; there- 
fore, taken strictly, the expression has reference to the flagellation of Christ 
only; but here it stands as a pars pro toto (Steiger) to denote the whole of 
Christ’s sufferings, of which His death was the culminating point. — By 
ἰάθητε the apostle declares, that, through the suffering of Christ (of course 
by the instrumentality of faith), the Christians are translated from the sick- 
ness of a sinful nature into the health of a life of righteousness. 

Ver. 25. fre γὰρ ὡς πρόβατα πλανώμενοι]. This explanatory clause (γάρ) 
points back, as the continuance in it of the direct address (a@yre . . . ἦτε) 
shows, in the first instance, to the statement immediately preceding οὗ τῷ 
μώλωπι ἰάθητε, but at the same time also to the thought ἕνα... τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ 
ζήσωμεν, to which that assertion is subservient. For the foregoing figure a 
new one is substituted, after Isa. 1111. 6: LXX. πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήθημεν: 
if πλανώμενοι be the correct reading, then from it the nearer definition of 
mpoGara is to be supplied, the sheep are to be thought of as those which have 
no shepherd (Matt. ix. 36: ὡσεὶ πρόβατα μὴ ἔχοντα ποιμένα ; comp. Num. xxvii. 
17; 1 Kings xxii. 17). — For the figure describing the state of man sepa- 
rated in his sin from God, comp. Matt. xviii. 12,18; Luke xv. 4 ff. — ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐπεστράφητε viv]. ἐπεστράφητε is, in harmony with the uniform usage of Scrip- 
ture, to be taken not in a passive (Wiesinger, Schott), but in a middle sense: 
“ye have turned yourselves.”2 Luther translates: “but ye are now turned.” 
The word. ἐπιστρέφειν means to turn one’s self away from (ἀπό, ἐκ), towards 


1 In his Lehrbuch der Bibl. Theol. (Ὁ. 172), 
Weiss only says: “Τὸ follows from ii. 24, that 
the being released from sin is certainly a con- 
sequence, but only the indirect consequence, 
of the death of Christ. Because it has released 
us from the guilt of our former sins, the fur- 
ther consequence will be, that henceforward 
we will renounce those sins which He vica- 
riously expiated.” 

2 Schott’s counter-remark;: ‘‘ The question 


is not here what they did, but what in Christ 
was imparted to them,” has all the less weight, 
that conversion, though the personal act of the 
Christian, must still be regarded as effected by 
Christ. Hofmann maintains, without the 
slightest right to do so, that in this passage 
the chief emphasis lies on the readers’ own 
act, though at the same time he correctly 
understands ἐπεστράφητε in a middle sense. 


212 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


something (ἐπί, πρός, εἰς), (sometimes equal to: to turn round); but it is not 
implied in the word itself, that the individual has formerly been in that place 
towards which he has now turned round, and whither he is going (therefore, 
in Gal. iv. 9, πάλιν is expressly added). Weiss (p. 122) is therefore wrong 
when from this very word he tries to prove that by ποιμὴν God, and not 
Christ, is to be understood, although the term sometimes includes in it the 
secondary idea of “back;” cf. 2 Pet. il. 21, 22. — ἐπὶ τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον 
τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν]. Cf. especially Ezek. xxxiv. 11, 12, 16, LXX.: ἐγὼ ἐκζητήσω 
τὰ mpoBuTa μου καὶ ἐπισκέψομαι αὐτά, ὥσπερ ζητεῖ ὁ ποιμὴν τὸ ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ... TO 
πλανώμενον ἀποστρέψω ; besides, with ποιμῆν, Ps. xxiii. 1; Isa. xl. 11. From 
the fact that in these passages God is spoken of as the shepherd, it must not 
be concluded, with Weiss, that ποιμὴν καὶ ἐπίσκοπος refers not to Christ, but to 
God. For not only has God, calling Himself a shepherd, promised a shep- 
herd (Ezek. xxxiv. 24, LXX.: ἀναστήσω én’ αὐτοὺς ποιμένα ἕνα... τὸν δοῦλον μου 
Δαυίδ, Xxxvii. 24), but Christ, too, speaks of Himself as the good Shepherd; 
and Peter himself, in chap. v. 4, calls Him ἀρχιποιμήν. In comparison with 
these passages, chap v. 2 is plainly of no account. All interpreters — ex- 
cept Weiss —rightly understand the expressions here used as applying to 
Christ. The designation ἐπίσκοπος would all the more naturally occur to the 
apostle, as it was, like ποιμήν, the name of the presidents of the churches 
who were, so to speak, the representatives of the One Shepherd and Bishop, 
the Head of the whole Church. — τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν belongs, as the omission of 
the article before ἐπίσκοπον shows, to both words; with the expression, 
ef. chap. i. 9, 22. 


CHAP. III. 273 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 1. ai γυναῖκες]. Rec., after C, K, L, P, ete. (Tisch. 7); Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8 omit αἱ, after A, B ; ai omitted perhaps in order to mark the vocative. 
— Almost all authorities (as also 8), even Griesb., along with Lachm. and Tisch., 
support the reading κερδηθήῆσονται, instead of κερδηθήσωνται. The future conjunct., 
occurring only in later writers (see Winer, p. 72 [E. T., 89]), is to be found only 
in min.; it is put here because of ἔνα ; superfluously, however, as iva in the N. T. 
is often construed cum. ind., John xvii. 2; Rev. xxii. 14.— Ver. 3. ἐμπλοκῆς 
τριχῶν Kal περιθέσεως]. Lachm. substitutes ἐμπλοκῆς ἢ περιθέσεως, in C. — The most 
important authorities, however, support the usual reading (Tisch.) — Ver. 4. 
πρᾳέος καὶ ἡσυχίου]. Rec., after A, C, L, K, P, 8, most min., Clem., Thph., etc. 
—Lachm. : ἡσυχίου καὶ πρᾳέος, in B, Vulg., Copt., etc. Instead of mpaéoc, Tisch. 
reads πρᾳέως, cf. A. Buttmann, p. 23. — Ver. 5. Millius, without sufficient reason, 
regards the words, ai ἐλπίζουσαι ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν, as spurious, because they are not in 
the vss. Aethiop. — However, according to A, B, C, etc., and Lachm. and Tisch., 
εἰς should probably be read for ἐπί. The article τόν, which is found almost only in 
min., must be deleted (Lachm., Tisch.), so that the original text probably runs: 
ai ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς Θεόν. SN reads ai ἐλπ. ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν, after the word ἑαυτάς. ---- Ver. 6. 
ὑπήκουσε]. Lachm.: ὑπήκουεν is insufficiently attested by B, Vulg.— Ver. 7. The 
Rec. συγκληρονόμοις (Tisch.) is found in several min. (3, 7, 8, ete.), in Vulg., Syr., 
Aeth., Arm., Arr., in Thph., Oec., Aug., etc.; it is doubtful if in B.1 In 8 we 
find at first hand, συγκληρονόύμους, and, as correction, συγκληρονόμοις (according to 
Buttm.). In A, C, K, L, P, many min., several versions, and Hier., on the 
other hand, we find the nominative, συγκληρονόμοι (Lachm.). The opinion of 
critics as to which is the original reading, is much divided ; almost all com- 
mentators prefer the Rec.; so, too, Reiche ; whilst Hofm. holds an opposite 
view. According to the handwriting, the nominative appears clearly to be the 
better-attested reading ; but for this, see the commentary on the verse. — A, C**, 
&, several min., Hier., add the adjective ποικίλης to χάριτος, which is probably 
taken from chap. iv. 10, but which Hofm. nevertheless considers genuine. — 
Instead of Rec. ἐκκόπτεσθαι, after ΟΕ, K, L, several min., and Theoph. (Tisch. 
7), Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read, after A, B, &, etc., ἐγκόπτεσθαι (Tisch. 8, évx.), 
which Hofmann also considers the original reading. Both readings occur in 
Oec. It cannot be decided with certainty. Buttm., following B, has accepted 
the dative ταῖς προσευχαῖς, in place of the accus. τὰς προσευχάς. Grammatically 
no objection can be raised (‘‘so that no hinderance be given to your prayers”’) ; 
but as this reading is only found in B, it can hardly be considered the original 


1 Birch has given as the reading of B: ing of B. On the other hand, in his Recensus 
συγκληρονόμοι, but has been accused of error lectt., Cod. δὲ, he gives συγκληρονόμοις as the 
by Majus. Buttmann, in his edition, reads reading adopted by him. 
συγκληρονόμοι, and gives this also as the read- 


274 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


one. — Ver. 8. ταπεινόφρονες. After A, B, Ὁ, κα, etc., Syr., Erp., etc.; accepted 
even by Griesb. and Scholz, instead of the φιλόφρονες of K, and several min. In 
some Cod. both words are placed side by side, which may, according to Hofmann, 
be taken as the original reading. — Ver 9. According to almost all authorities, 
A, B, C, K, &, al., Syr., utr. Copt., etc., as also Lachm. and Tisch., εἰδότες 
should be deleted. — Ver. 10. "The Rec. gives the pronoun αὐτοῦ after γλῶσσαν 
(K, L, P, δὲ, etc.); in A, B, C, and several min., it is wanting here, as also after 
χείλη ; Lachm. and Tisch. have accordingly omitted it in both passages. — 
Ver. 11. After ἐκκλινάτω, several Codd., A, B, C*, have the particle δέ (Lachm., 
Tisch. 7), which in the Rec. is wanting after C**, K, L, P, δὲ, ete. (Tisch. 8). 
The omission seems to be a correction. — Ver. 12. οἱ ὀφθαλμοῆ. The article is 
wanting in A, B, C*, K, L, P, &, etc., omitted by Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.; 
Griesb., too, regards of as doubtful. In the original passage (Ps. xxxiv. 16, 
LXX., it is wanting. — Ver. 13. ζηλωταῆ. After A, B, C, 8, al. (Lachm., Tisch. 
8), instead of the Rec., μιμηταῖ in K, L, P, several min., Oec. (Tisch.). μιμηταῖ 
appears to be a correction. τοῦ ayafov having been taken as masc., and ζηλωταῖ 
not being suitable thereto, μιμηταί, following such passages as Eph. v. 1, 1 Thess. 
i. 6, very naturally presented itself ; De Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, Hofmann, 
prefer μιμηταί ; Briickner and Schott, jAwrat, Instead of ἐὰν... γένησθε, B 
reads: ei... γένοισθε, as Buttm. notes, without, however, receiving it into the 
text. — Ver. 14. Instead of ἀλλ᾽ εἰ, in A and several min.: εἰ δέ, ---- μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, 
omitted in B, L, 43, but yet received into the text by Buttm. — Ver. 15. τὸν 
Θεόν]. Rec., after K, L, P, several min., Thph., Oec. Instead of this, Lachm. 
and Tisch. read τὸν Χριστόν (considered by Griesb. to be probably the genuine 
reading) ; attested by A, B, Ὁ, &, 7, al., Syr., utr. Copt., etc., Clem., Fulgent. 
The alteration to τὸν Θεόν is explained by Isa. viii. 18. — After ἕτοιμοι, the Ree. 
adds dé; according to Tisch.’s statement, it stands in A, K, etc., but not in 
B, C, δὰ, etc. ; Buttm. affirms that it is also to be found in B; Tisch. 7 has 
retained it ; Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have not. —In place of αἰτοῦντι, § has the 
correction : ἀπαιτοῦντι. --- A, B, C, &, 5, al., Copt., Syr., etc., have ἀλλά before 
ueta, Which Lachm. and Tisch. have justly accepted ; it may be considered as 
the original, not only from the testimony of the authorities (it is wanting only 
in K, L, P, some min., and versions, in Oec., Beda), but also as being the more 
difficult reading. — Ver. 16. The reading which is best attested by the authori- 
ties is : ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσι ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν, as in A, C, K, &, etc. Instead of the 
indicative, Rec. has the conjunctive : καταλαλῶσιν. B, on the other hand, simply 
has καταλαλεῖσθε, which Tisch. has accepted ; he is, however, hardly justified in 
doing so, as it is too insufficiently attested, and appears rather to be a correction 
for the purpose of making the passage less difficult (cf. Schott and Hofmanr). 
~ Ver. 17. εἰ θέλο. Justly accepted even by Griesb., instead of the Rec. εἰ 
θέλει. ---- Ver. 18. ἡμῶν, following upon ἁμαρτιῶν, in C**, al., Syr., Arr., etc., has 
been accepted by Lachm. in his small edition ; it appears to have been inserted 
in consideration of iva ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ Tt. 8. —Instead of the Rec. ἔπαθε, in B, K, 
L, P, pl., Thph., Oec., Aug. (Tisch. 7), A, C, δὰ, 5, al., Cypr., Didym., several 
versions (Lachm., Tisch. 8) have ἀπέθανε ; De Wette-Briickner explain ἀπέθανε 
to be a gloss, after Rom. v. 6, vi. 10; Heb. iv. 27; to this Wiesinger agrees ; it 
is, however, possible that ἔπαθεν arose from chap. ii. 21, as Hofm. also thinks. 
According to Tisch., the reading of the Codd., A, C*, G, before the verb, is: 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν vel ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ; & has ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ; but whether this addition be genuine, 
cannot with certainty be decided ; it may equally well have been left out as 
superfluous, as added in order to give prominence to the peculiar significance of 


CHAP. III. 1. . 270 


the death of Christ. — Instead of ἡμᾶς (A, C, K, L, al., pl., several versions, etc., 
Lachm., Tisch. 8), B and several min. have ὑμᾶς (Tisch. 7); insufficiently 
attested. In the original handwriting, 8 has neither ἡμᾶς nor ὑμᾶς : in the 
correction, ἡμᾶς. In B, τῷ Θεῷ, after προσαγάγῃ, is wanting, for which reason 
Buttm. has omitted it. — πνεύματι]. Accepted even by Griesb., instead of Rec. 
τῷ πνεύματι. ---- Ver, 20, ἀπεξεδέχετο!. Undoubtedly the correct rendering, instead 
of the ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο, which is hardly supported- by any authority. Tisch. 
remarks : videtur ex conjectura Erasmi fluxisse, qui sic edidit inde ab ed. 2.— 
ὀλίγα. Ree., after C, K, L, P, many min., Thph., Oec. (Griesb., Scholz) ; 
Lachm. and Tisch., on the other hand, following A, B, δὲ, al., Vulg., Orig., etc., 
have accepted ὀλέγοι. ὀλίγαι seems to be a correction, because of the subsequent 
ψυχαί. --- Ver. 21. 6]. Rightly accepted by Griesb., instead of the reading « in 
the ed. Elz. —In K, many min., Thph., etc., the opening words — evidently as 
a correction for the sake of simplification — are thus transposed : ὃ ἀντίτυπον viv 
ὑμᾶς oofer, —Instead of the jude in the Rec. (C, K, L, Copt., ete., Thph., Oec.), 
Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted ὑμᾶς (A, B, P, δὲ, several vss., and Fathers) ; 
doubtless rightly, as the change to ὑμᾶς can be explained on the principle that 
the more general ἡμᾶς seemed better suited to the context. Reiche prefers ἡμᾶς, 
— Ver. 22. According to almost all authorities, the article tod stands before 
Θεοῦ (Rec., Lachm., Tisch. 7); Tisch. 8, however, following B and x, has 
dropped it. 


Ver. 1. From here to ver. 6, an exhortation to wives. — ὁμοίως not 
simply particula transeundi (Pott); on account of the subsequent ὑποτασ- 
couevac it stands related rather to the exhortation contained in what pre- 
cedes; the participle here as in chap. ii. 18. — αἱ γυναῖκες. Form of address, 
like of οἰκέται (as opposed to Steiger); vid., ὑμῶν, ver. 2; τῶν γυναικῶν (instead 
of ὑμῶν) is used here, not because the thought is a general one (De Wette, 
Wiesinger), nor “ because Peter means to say that the heathen men should 
be won over by their own wives” (Schott), but because the apostle wishes 
clearly to point out how the wives too may be able to advance the kingdom 
of God. The words are addressed generally to all Christian wives, though, 
as the sequel shows, with special reference to those who have unbelieving 
husbands. — ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν]. ἰδίοις is used here, not by way 
of contradistinction (Glossa interl.: suis viris, non adulteris, or according to 
Calvin: ut Ap. castitatis uxores admoneat avocetque a suspectis obsequiis virorum 
aliorum; so, too, Fronmiiller), but only to express the idea of belonging 
together, more strongly than the simple pronoun; cf. also Winer, p. 145 f. 
(E. T., 153 f.). — With the thought here expressed, cf. Eph. v. 22-24; Col. 
111. 18: 1 Tim. ii. 9. It is self-evident, — although many interpreters have 
discussed the question at considerable length, —that the subjection of the 
wife to the husband is of quite a different kind from that of the slave to 
the master. The apostle, however, does not go into the subject further, but 
contents himself with simply emphasizing that point.1— iva καὶ εἴ τίνες 
ἀπειθοῦσι τῷ λόγῳ]. καὶ εἴ, 1.e., “ even then when,” supposes not only a possible, 


1 For similar remarks of the ancients, see cant: ἀγαθῆς γνναῖκός ἐστιν, ὦ Νικοστράτη, μὴ 
in Steiger; that of the humorist Philemon (in κρείττον᾽ εἶναι τ᾽ ἀνδρὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπήκοον. 
a Fragment, ver. 123) is particularly signifi- 


210 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

but a particularly unfavorable case; that is to say, when men who are 
joined to Christian wives oppose the λόγος, even then may such be gained 
over by the Christian walk of their wives;! twec must be conceived as 
referring to heathen men with Christian wives. — With τῷ λόγῳ, cf. chap. 
11. 8. — The expression ἀπειθεῖν denotes here, as in chap. ii. 7, not a simple 
negation only (Pott: ad religionem christianam nondum accessisse), but an 
opposition to. — διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς : ἑαυτῶν must be supplied to 
γυναικῶν; it is not wives in general who are here meant, but only the wives 
of heathen husbands. — ἀναστροφῆ ; quite generally: the Christian walk of 
women, with special reference, however, to their relation to their husbands; 
it is precisely obedience that most easily wins the heart. — ἄνευ λόγου : Huss, 
incorrectly: sine verbo praedicationis publicae (so, too, Fronmiiller); the 
words are used here to emphasize more strongly διὰ τῆς. . . ἀναστροφῆς, and 
must be held to refer to the conduct of wives (De Wette, Wiesinger). 
Schott wrongly unites ἄνευ λόγου with the preceding τῆς... ἀναστροφῆς into 
one idea; Peter could never have meant to say that the walk of women 
should be a silent one. The apostle’s thought is this: If the husbands 
oppose the Word, the wives should all the more diligently seek to preserve 
a Christian walk, in order by it to win over their husbands, even without 
words, i.e., “ without preaching and exhortation on their part ” (De Wette). 
Oecumenius incorrectly refers these words to the conduct of husbands in 
the sense: cessanti omni verbo et contradictione. —xepdniqcovra: that is to 
say, for the faith, and by it for the kingdom of God; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 19 ff.; 
so, too, Schott indeed, who, however, unjustifiably thinks that the apostle’s: 
meaning is, that the preservation of the marriage relation is the primary object 
which is to be attained by the good behavior of the wives. On the indic. 
with iva, cf. Winer, p. 269 ff. (E. T., 287 ff.). 

Ver. 2. ἐποπτεύσαντες τὴν ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν : for ἐποπτ., cf. 
chap 11. 195. The participial clause here serves as a further explanation of 
the preceding διὰ, x.7.A. —dyvoc: “ chaste,” in the full extent of the word, not 
only in contradistinction to πορνεία proper, but to whatsoever violates the 
moral relation of the subjection of the wife to her husband. This dyveia is 
determined by ἐν φόβῳ (not equal to, zn timore Dei conservato: Glossa interl. ; 
Grotius too, Bengel, Jachmann, Weiss, Fronmiiller, etc., understand by 
φόβος here the “fear of God”), as connected in the closest possible way 
with the shrinking from every violation of duty towards the husband; 3 
ef. chap. ii. 18. 

Ver. 3. ὧν ἔστω]. The genitive ὧν does not depend on a κόσμος to be 
supplied from the predicate ὁ ἔξωθεν. .. κόσμος (De Wette, Wiesinger, 


1 Hofmann maintains that if the protasis be 
thus understood, the apodosis is not suited to 
it, ‘inasmuch as no other case could be sup- 
posed in which the husband could be won, 
without words, by the conduct of his wife, 
than that of his being disobedient to the 
Word,” and that the difficulty can only be 
removed if εἰ τινες be interpreted as equal to 
οἵτινες. But the difficulty Hofmann alludes 


to clearly still remains, though in fact it has 
no existence if only the idea ἀπειθοῦσι receive 
the precision it is entitled to. 

2 Schott unwarrantably maintains that in 
this interpretation it is not ἀναστροφή which is 
more precisely defined by the homogeneous 
adjectival expression ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνή, but ἁγνὴ 
ἀναστρ. by ἐν φόβῳ. 


CHAP. III. 4. 211 
Schott, Hofmann); such a construction, arbitrary in itself, is here entirely 
inadmissible on account of the remoteness of the predicate, from which the 
idea wanting is to be taken. The genitive is rather ruled by ἔστω. εἰναΐ τινος 
expresses, as usual, the relation of belonging to; the sense is therefore: 
‘ whose business let it be,” i.e., who have to occupy themselves with. — οὐχ 
ὁ ἔξωθεν, x.7.A. As often in our epistle, the negative preceding the positive. 
— ὁ ἔξωθεν is closely joined together with κόσμος. The genitives which stand 
between, and are dependent on κόσμος, serve to determine the idea more 
precisely, their position immediately after ὁ ἔξωθεν is explained from the 
intention of the writer to lay special emphasis on them, since it belongs to 
women to take pleasure in adorning themselves in this wise. The whole 
expression is to be interpreted thus: “outward adornment wrought by the 
plaiting of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.” — ἐμπλοκῆ, 
Gx dey (in the passage specially to be compared with this, 1 Tim. ii. 9, 
πλέγματα is used), not “the plaits,” but “the plaiting;” it is an active idea, 
like περίθεσις and ἔνδυσις ; “these verbalia describe the vain occupation of 
worldly women” (Wies.); χρύσια are golden ornaments generally. —The 
last two members of the clause, united by 7, are connected with the first 
by καί, because they have reference to things which are put on the body. 
Ver. 4. As antithesis to what precedes, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἔσωθεν κόσμος would have 
been expected; instead of this, however, the author at once states in what 
that adornment does consist. —6 κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος does not mean 
the virtutes christ. quas Spir. s. per regenerationem in homine operatur (Gerhard ; 
so, too, Wiesinger and Fronmiiller), for here there is no mention either of the 
Holy Ghost or of regeneration. It denotes simply the inner man, in contra- 
distinction to the outward man (so, too, De Wette, Briickner, Weiss, Schott, 
Hofmann); κρυπτός, antithesis to ἔξωθεν, ver. 3; cf. ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρ., Rom. vii. 22; 
Eph. iii. 16; ὁ ἔσωθεν, sc. ἄνθρ., 2 Cor. iv. 16; cf., too, such expressions as: 
τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδιας, 1 Cor. xiv. 25, and τὰ κρυπτὰ τὼν ἄνθρ., Rom. ii. 16. The 
apostle selected the expression κρυπτός as a contrast to the conspicuous adorn- 
ment formerly spoken of. τῆς καρδίας is not gen. qualitatis (Schott) ; καρδία 
itself denotes no quality; it is the genitive of apposition subjoined, in that 
καρδία is the seat of the feeling and the disposition. —év τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ]. τὸ 
ἄφθαρτον, substantive (like φθαρτά, chap. i. 18), “the imperishable” (incorrectly, 
Hofmann: ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ, sc. κόσμῳ), in contrast to the perishable ornaments 
above mentioned. The prepos. év points out the sphere in which the inner 
hidden man should move. If dv ὁ κόσμος ἔστω be supplied after ἀλλά, then 
(ἐν is to be joined with it, so as to show in what, and with what, this their 
inward hidden man should be their ornament” (Schott; so, too, Hofmann). 
— τοῦ πρᾳέος καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος, a more exact definition of the ἄφθαρτον ; it 


1 When Hofmann would advance against 
this construction, that the affirmative subject 


reply that it is not ὁ κρυπτὸς . . 
itself, but ὃ κρυπτὸς . .. ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ 


. ἄνθρωπος in 


(ver 4) is not suitable to it, ““ since it may be 
said of the hidden man of the heart, that it 
should be the woman’s adornment, but not 
that it should be her business, for she herself 
is that hidden man,’ it must be observed in 


ἀφθάρτῳ, k. τ. A., Which is to be taken as that 
which should be characteristic of women; as 
Hofmann also in his expositions says: ‘* The 
adornment of women is not indicated by the 
simple, but by the compound expression,” 


278 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
denotes not the mv. ἅγιον of God, but the spirit of man. The meek and quiet 
spirit (here emphasized with special reference to ὑποτασσόμενοι, ver. 1) is that 
“imperishable,” in which the hidden life of woman should exist and move.! 
6 ἐστιν ἐνώπιον τοὺ Θεοῦ πολυτελές]. ὁ does not apply to the whole (Grotius), 
nor to τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ (Bengel, Pott, Steiger, Schott), since it is self-evident that 
the ἄφθαρτον is in God’s eyes πολυτελές. It is to be taken with the immedi- 
ately preceding πνεύματος (De Wette, Wiesinger). Such a πνεῦμα is, in the 
judgment of God (1 Tim. ii. 3), πολυτελές (Mark xiv. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 9), whilst 
outward adornment, worthless to the divine mind, possesses a value only in 
the eyes of men.? 

Vv. 5, 6. οὕτω γάρ, ground for the exhortation: dv ἔστω, etc., by the ex- 
ample of the saintly women of the O. T. οὕτω refers back to what precedes. 
- ποτὲ καὶ αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες]. ποτέ, i.e., in the time of the Old Covenant. — 
ἅγιαι : because they belonged to the chosen people of God (Schott), and their 
life was sanctified and consecrated to God in faith. —ai ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς (ἐπὶ) 
Θεον]. Cf. 1 Tim. v. 5. This nearer definition is subjoined not only be- 
cause hope in God, i.e., in the fulfilment of His promises, was the character- 
istic mark of the piety of these holy women, rooted as it was in faith, but 
specially “to explain why it did not, and could not, occur to them, ever to 
delight in empty show” (Hofmann).3 — With ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς, ef. 1 Tim. ii, 9. 
— ὑποτασσόμεναι τοὶς ἀνδράσιν is linked on to ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς, showing wherein 
lay the proof that they had adorned themselves with the meek and quiet 
spirit. There is but one (De Wette) characteristic indeed here mentioned ; 
but, according to the connection, it is the chief manifestation of that spirit. 
It is incorrect to resolve (as was formerly done in the commentary) the par- 
ticiple into: “from this fact, that.” — Ver. 6. ὡς Σάῤῥα ὑπήκουσε τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ]. A 
simple comparison of the contents of the two passages is a sufficient refuta- 
tion of De Wette’s supposition that, in the words before us, there is a refer- 
ence to Heb. xi. 11. ---- ὡς : particula allegandi exemplum: Bengel. Sarah is 
mentioned, because, as the wife of Abraham and ancestress of the people 
of Israel, she had especial significance in the history of redemption.*— 


1 The two expressions, πραὕς and ἡσύχιος, 
must not be sharply distinguished; πραύτης 
stands contrasted specially with ὀργὴ (Jas. i. 
20, 21) or ζῆλος (Jas. iii. 13, 14), synonymous 
with ἐπιεικεία (2 Cor. x. 1), μακροθυμία (Col. 
iii. 12), ὑπομονὴ (1 Tim. vi. 11), ete.; it is 
peculiar to him who does not allow himself 
to be provoked to wrath. ἡσυχία is related to 
ἀκαταστασία; ἃ ἡσύχιος is he who is peaceable 
and does not care for noisy life. Bengel inter- 
prets mansuetus (mpavs), ‘qui non turbat;” 
tranquillus (ἡσύχιος), * qui turbas aliorum fert 
placide;” the contrary would be more correct. 

2 Luther: “A woman should be thus dis- 
posed as not to care for adornment. Else 
when people turn their minds to adornment, 
they never give it up; that is their way and 
their nature; therefore a Christian woman 
should despise it. But if her husband wish it, 


or there be some other good reason for adorn- 
ing herself, then she is right todo so.” Calvin, 
too, rightly observes: ‘‘ Non quemvis cultum 
reprehendere voluit Petrus, sed morbum vani- 
tatis, quo mulieres laborant.”’ 

3 According to Schott, this addition is meant 
to express that ‘‘ the complete development of 
the Christian Church, to which they belonged, 
was only as yet an object of hope;” but this 
introduces a reference which the words do not 
contain. 

4 Schott applies ws to that which direttly 
precedes, in ¢his sense: that ‘‘ the conduct of 
the holy women was regulated only according 
to the standard of Sarah.” Hofmann thus: 
that Sarah “‘is mentioned as a shining example 
of the conduct of holy women.”’ Both are 
wrong, since neither is alluded to by as. 


CHAP. III. 5, 6. 279 
ὑπήκουσε refers not merely to the single case which the apostle had particu- 
larly before his mind, but denotes the habitual behavior of Sarah towards 
Abraham: the aor. is used here as in Gal. iv. 8 (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott). 
— κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα]. She showed herself submissive to the will of Abra- 
ham in this, that she called him κύριος. The allusion is here to Gen. xviii. 12 
(cf. also 1 Sam. i. 8, LXX.).— ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα]. Lorinus: non successione 
generis, sed imitatione fidei ; Pott incorrectly explains the aorist by the future 
(cece); the translation, too, of the Vulg,, estis, is inexact; Luther is right: 
“whose daughters ye are become.” As Paul calls the believing heathen, on 
account of their faith, children of Abraham, so Peter here styles the women 
who had become Christians, children of Sarah. —dyaforowica does not be- 
long to ὑποτασσόμεναι, as if ὡς Σάῤῥα... τέκνα were a parenthesis (Bengel, 
Ernesti, etc.), but to ἐγενήθητε, not, however, as stating how they become 
(Weiss, p. 110 f.)} or “have become” children of Sarah (to the first interpre- 
tation the aorist ἐγενήθητε is opposed, to the latter the pres. partic.), but as 
showing the mark by which they proved themselves children of Sarah. It 
may be resolved into “since,” or “that is to say if,” etc. It is grammati- 
cally incorrect to see in ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι the result of ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα, and to 
explain: “in this way have they become the children of Sarah, that they are 
now in accordance therewith ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι and μὴ φοβούμεναι (Schott). By 
ἀγαθοποιεῖν is to be understood here not specially benevolence (Oecum.) ;? 
the word denotes rather the whole moral activity of Christian life in its 
fullest extent, although here, as the connection shows, with particular refer- 
ence to the marriage relation. — καὶ μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτύησιν]. πτόησις 
equals φόβος (Pollux, v. 122: συστολὴ, θόρυβος, ταραχῇ), in the N. T. ἅπ. λεγ. 
(Luke xxi. 9, xxxvii. 9, the verb πτοηθέντες is connected with ἔμφοβοι γενόμενοι); 
it denotes not the object causing fear, but the fear itself which is felt; 
and it can be looked on either objectively as a power threatening man, or 
laying hold of him (as, Prov. 111. 25, LXX.: καὶ ob φοθηθήσῃ πτόησιν ἐπελθοῦσαν; 
1 Mace. iii. 25: ἡ πτόησις ἐπιπίπτει ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη ; the synonymous terms φόϊϑος, 
τρόμος, are used also in a like manner), or taken in a sense purely subjective. 
Most commentators understand πτόησις here in the first of these senses, only 
they do not take the conception strictly by itself, but identify it with that 
which causes fear; in the first edition of this commentary, the second mean- 
ing is attributed to πτόησις : φοβεῖσθαι πτόησιν equal to φοβεῖσθαι φόβον : “to 
experience fear ” (Mark iv. 41; Luke ii. 9; cf. Winer, p. 210 f. [E. T., 223]); 
but this explanation is opposed by the fact “that in such a connection the 
substantive must be taken not in idea only, but in form also from the verb” 
(Briickner). The idea here is quite as universal as in ἀγαθοπ. ; and accord- 
ingly it must be conceived as the fear generally which the enmity of the 


1'It must be held, with Wiesinger, Briick- 
ner, and Schott, in opposition to Weiss and 
Fronmiiller, that it is more natural to take 
these words as applying to Gentile-Christian 
rather than to Jewish-Christian readers. For 
inasmuch as the latter, before their conversion, 
were already τέκνα τῆς Sappas, some allusion 
must have been made to their not having been 


ΒΟ in a right manner, and as they now had 
become. It does not follow from John viii. 39 
(as Weiss thinks) that an allusion of this kind 
Was unnecessary. 

2 Meta τοῦ εὐκόσμον καὶ πρέποντος Χρισ- 
τιανοῖς κόσμου Kal ἐλεήμονας αὐτὰς εἶναι παραι- 
νεῖ, μηδὲν ὑποβλεπόμενας τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν 
αὐτῶν διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλογισμόν. 


280 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

unbelieving world occasions to believers; still, according to the connection, 
the apostle had doubtless in his mind more particularly the conduct of 
heathen men towards their Christian wives. — Luther’s translation is in- 
exact: “if ye ... are not so fearful.” The rendering of Stephanus is 
incorrect, 5. δ.» πτόησις: jubentur mulieris officium facere ETIAM, CUM nullus 
eas metus constringit, i.e., sponte et ultro. 

Ver. 7. οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως]. ὁμοίως, with the participle following, refers back, 
as in ver. 1, to ὑποτάγητε πάσῃ ἄνθρ. κτίσει, with which the exhortation begins 
(Hofmann); though there is no ὑποτασσόμενοι (cf. ii. 18, iii. 1), there lies 
something corresponding to it in the fact that the wife on her part possesses 
a τιμὴ to be acknowledged by the husband. Pott erroneously renders ὁμοίως 
by vicissim, “on the other hand;” nor is it, as De Wette thinks probable, 
to be expanded: “in like manner, ye men also, hear my exhortation.” — 
συνοικοῦντες]. συνοικεῖν (az. Aey.) is not a euphemismus de tori conjugalis consue- 
tudine (Hieronym., Contra Jovian., lib. 1. c. 4; Augustin., In Ps. calvi., etc.); 
the reference is rather to life together at home. —xara γνῶσιν]. As γνῶσις is 
here anarthrous, it is wrong to understand γνῶσις as referring directly to 
“Christian recognition of the relation of wife to husband” (Briickner, 
Schott) ; κατὰ γνῶσιν is rather an adverbial expression, in which γνῶσις is to 
be understood generally, as Wiesinger correctly remarks: “according to recog- 
nition, i.e., so that home life must be regulated by knowledge and under- 
standing ” (so also Hofmann). Similar adverbial expressions, formed by a 
conjunction of κατά with an anarthrous subst., occur frequently both in clas- 
sical and N. T.-Greek. It is evident from the context that κατὰ γνῶσιν has 
here special reference to the marriage relation; but from this it does not 
follow that the interpretation, “in α judicious, discerning manner,” or Lu- 
ther’s “with reason,” is incorrect (in opposition to Briickner and Schott). 
De Wette is completely mistaken in rendering γνῶσις by “that knowledge 
of men and self, in fact, that inward discernment, which is the condition of 
all moderation,” as is Bengel also directly by moderatio.1— ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ 
σκεύει τῳ γυναικείῳ is erroneously connected by Luther and others with ἀπονέ- 
povtec;. it belongs, however, to συνοικοῦντες, Which requires a nearer definition. 
— The word σκεῦος is used to designate the wife in 1 Thess. iv. 4 (see Liine- 
mann in loc.) with reference to the husband; the same meaning, though 
with various applications, is here attributed to it by many interpreters.” 
But this view is incorrect, for τῷ γυναικείῳ, 86. σκεύει, is subjoined by way of 
explanation, and the comparative dog. shows that the husband also is thought 
of as σκεῦος. σκεῦος must be taken here in its specific meaning of a utensil 
(or instrument) serving a particular purpose, and is accordingly to be under- 
stood as specially applicable to man, in so far as the latter is used by God 


1 Oecumenius understands this exhortation 
in connection with ver. 6, as having a special 
application to the household: ot avdpes... 
συνοικοῦντες" τουτέστιν : αἴσθησιν λαμβάνοντες 
τῆς τοῦ θήλεος κουφότητος καὶ τοῦ εὐπαραφόρον 
ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ εἰς μικροψυχίαν εὐολίσθου, μακρόθυ- 
μοι γίνεσθε πρὸς αὐτὰς, μὴ λόγον ἀπαιτοῦντες 


πικρῶς τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτῶν εἰς ταμιείαν 
παρακατεθέτων. 

2 Beza: ‘* Est femina vas, i. e., comes et 
adjutrix viro ad fideliter coram Deo transi- 
gendam vitam adjuncta.” Bengel: ‘ Denotat 
hoe sexum et totum ingenium temperament- 
umque foemineum.” 


CHAP. III. 7. 281 
for the accomplishment of His will (cf. Acts ix. 15). It is inaccurate, nor 
can it be justified by Rom. ix. 21 ff., to take the word in the general sense 
of “creation ” (so Wiesinger, and formerly in this commentary). Hofmann 
understands σκεῦος here as referring both to the husband and the wife, inas- 
much as “in a life united in marriage, one part is destined to be and to 
accomplish something for the other;” but the reference to this mutual 
relation is purely arbitrary.1—dofevectépw]. Bengel: Comparativus, etiam 
vir habet infirmitatem; in like manner Steiger: “the less weak is called upon 
to assist the more weak” (thus also Fronmiiller). This view is, however, 
incorrect; it is the husband rather as the stronger σκεῦος ---- there is no refer- 
ence made here to his weakness — who is here contrasted with the wife as 
the weaker (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). And, because he is 
such a σκεῦος, it is demanded of him that he live with his wife κατὰ γνῶσιν ; ὡς 
here also states the reason: because the wife is a ox. ἀσθενενέστερον, it is ac- 
cordingly incumbent on the man to behave towards her κατὰ γνῶσιν. Schott 
erroneously sees in κατὰ γνῶσιν the determining reason why the man should 
treat her as a ox. ἀσθ.; but this can the less be maintained, that κ. γν. cannot 
signify “because he recognizes her as such,” but states the manner of the 
συνοικεῖν. ---- ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει Stands in apposition to τῷ γυναικείῳ, sc. σκεύει, and 
is put first by way of emphasis. — γυναικεῖος, ax. 2εγ.γ Lev. xviii. 22; Deut. 
xxii. 5, LXX.; Esth. ii. 11, 17. — ἀπονέμοντες τιμῆν, “in that ye show honor 
(respect) to them;” ἀπονέμειν in the N. T. ἅπ. Aey. — The participle is not co- 
ordinate with the foregoing (συνοικοῦντες), but subordinate to it, since it brings 
prominently forward one of the chief ways in which the preceding exhorta- 
tion may be carried into effect. The thought here must not be arbitrarily 
limited to any special relation (e. g., to that of maintenance or of continence, 
etc.). The husband should, in every relation, show the respect due to his 
wife. — ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις (-οι) χάριτος ζωῆς Serves as ground of the exhorta- 
tion; if the reading be συγκληρονόμοις, the reference is to the wives; if 
συγκληρονόμοι, to the husbands (in opposition to Pott, who somewhat singu- 
larly interprets as equal to εἰσι γὰρ συγκληρονόμοι, 86. αἱ γυναῖκες). The dative 
is more in harmony with the structure of the sentence and the thought, and 
therefore is to be preferred to the nom. supported by the authorities; 
although the nom. may be defended on the ground that husbands, as συγκλ. 
of their wives, should in turn regard the latter as their ovyxa. But since 
this last is really the point of importance, it can hardly be assumed that the 
apostle would only have hinted at it, without openly giving expression to 
it.2— καὶ συγκληρονόμοις, De Wette-Briickner explain, “as (those who) also 


1 Schott arbitrarily asserts that the creature 
is here termed σκεῦος, “as a vessel which is 
destined to receive into itself, as its real con- 
tents, the realization of the divine will.” 
Even though a vessel containing something 
can be termed a σκεῦος, it does not follow that 
σκεῦος must be understood as meaning this 
and nothing else. 

2 In the second edition of this Commentary 
it was said: “Why should not the apostle 


base his exhortation to the men to honor their 
wives, by reminding them (the men) that they 
are called to inherit the χάρις ζωῆς along with 
their wives?” Reiche says: ‘‘scilicet quia 
absurdum (!) esset, sic argumentari.”” Briick- 
ner maintains that meaning to be “ altogether 
inappropriate and foreign to the purpose of 
the address.”? These assertions, however, can 
by no means be accepted, since the conscious- 
ness of being a fellow-heir of salvation with 


282 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
(like yourselves) (are) fellow-heirs (one with another).” The reference here 
attributed to cvv —simply on account of xai—is inappropriate, since it is a 
thought entirely foreign to the context, that the wives are heirs with each 
other. If the reading συγκληρονόμοις be adopted, συν applies to the husbands, 
equivalent to “with you;” «ai may stand with reference to the foregoing 
ἀσθενεστέρῳ, adding a second particular to it (Schott); or it may also serve 
simply to intensify συν, since, strictly speaking, it is redundant. If, how- 
ever, συγκληρονόμοι be read, καί is to be taken in the latter way, and is not to 
be explained thus: “by ἀπονέμοντες something further is enjoined, which 
goes beyond the... κατὰ γνῶσιν ᾿ (Hofmann); for συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν 
stands imperatively, whilst συγκληρονόμοι does not say what the husbands 
should be, but what they are. With the idea κληρονύμοι, cf. chap. i. 4; the 
expression ovy«Anp., Rom. viii. 17; Eph. iii. 6; Heb. xi. 9.— χάριτος ζωῆς]. 
ζωῆς States in what the χάρις, of which they are and will be κληρονόμοι, consists. 
It is erroneous to resolve the expression into χάρις ζῶσα (Erasmus) or χάρις 
ζωοποιοῦσα (Grotius). Hofmann, assuming συγκληρονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος ζωῆς to 
be the true reading, gives an interpretation different from the above: “as 
such who, with their wives, share a life of manifold grace, i.e., of those 
divine favors which are experienced in common in every marriage by be- 
lievers and unbelievers.” In this way, however, justice is done to neither 
of the ideas, nor is it pointed out what the favors in married life referred 
to are.?— εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθωι (Rec. ἐκκόπτεσθαι) τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν]. 
strictly, incidere, then inlercidere, from which arises ‘the further meaning 
impedire ;® ἐκκόπτειν, pr. excidere, whence stirpitus delere;* the idea of the 
latter word is stronger than that of the former, but the thought in both 
readings remains .substantially the same, since both expressions denote the 
ceasing of prayer. Wiesinger incorrectly understands the meaning of 
the term ἐγκόπτ. to be: “ prayer in the mean time there still is, but the way 
is closed to it.” In like manner De Wette, following Bretschneider: ne 
viam praecludatis precibus vestris, remarks: “ Prayer is by sin hindered from 
mounting up to the throne of God;” and such is in substance Hofmann’s 
view.> This idea would, however, have been more definitely expressed. 


ἐγκόπτειν, 


any one may very well lead to a recognition of 
the τιμή which he possesses. Nor is there 
any thing improbable in the circumstance 
itself, that the apostle, whilst basing the ex- 
hortation συνοικεῖν κατὰ γνῶσιν On the position 
of the women, should ground the ἀπονέμειν 
τιμήν on the position of the men. — Schott 
passes too lightly over the whole question. 

1 On the redundance of καὶ in comparisons, 
see Winer, p. 390 (E. T., 548); but this use of 
it cannot be appealed to, since ws here is not a 
comparative particle. Wiesinger thinks that 
συν perhaps contains the reference to a com- 
munity to which man and wife equally belong; 
but what this was, would have been indicated 
by the context, as Eph. iii. 6; such, however, 
is not the case here. To the expression 
** strictly,” Reiche adds a ?, without ever 


thinking that, since the same idea is expressed 
by καὶ and συν, one of the two must be 
redundant, and that “strictly ’ is only meant 
to show that καί is in so far not purely re- 
dundant, that it serves to strengthen the idea 
expressed by συν. 

2 There is no warrant for the opinion that 
the apostle’s exhortation must apply also to 
such husbands as have unbelieving wives, 
since a case so special might well have been 
passed over. If the apostle had wished to 
make reference to this, he would in some way 
have alluded to it; cf. ver. 1 ff. 

3 Hes. ἐμποδίζειν, διακωλύειν. 

4 Of. Job xix. 10, LXX.: ἐξέκοψε δὲ ὥσπερ 
δένδρον τὴν ἐλπίδα μου. 

5 In this interpretation the reference to the 
coming of prayer to God is a simple importa- 


CHAP. III. 8. 283 
The apostle does not say that the power and the hearing of prayer are hin- 
dered, but that the prayer itself is (this also in opposition to Reiche). In 
harmony with the connection of this last clause, by τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμὼν is to be 
understood either the joint prayer of married persons (Weiss, p. 352),! or the 
prayers which those here addressed offer up, as the husbands of their wives 
(or, further, as heads of households).. Depreciation of the wife, in spite of 
union with respect to the κληρονομία, necessarily excludes prayer from married 
life. Schott: “Where the husband does not recognize that the union of 
natural life in marriage is also union in the state of grace, there can natur- 
ally be no expression of the spiritual and Christian fellowship of marriage, 
no prayer in common.” 

Ver. 8. Exhortations of a general character follow, without regard to the 
various conditions of men, yet in connection with chap. ii. 11 ff. They deal 
with the relations of the Christians towards each other, and towards those 
who are inimically disposed to them. — τὸ dé τέλος, here adverbially: “finally, 
lastly ;” in the classics τέλος δέ occurs frequently.? — πάντες, emphatically, in 
contrast to what preceded: slaves and masters, husbands and wives. — ἔστε 
or some such word is usually supplied here; it is more correct, however, to 
consider the following adjectives, etc., as standing in a dependence similar 
to that of the participles formerly; only that the apostle has in his mind, 
instead of the particular ὑποτάγητε, «.7.4., in ii. 13, the more general exhorta- 
tion to obedience toward God. — ὁμόφρονες, in the N. T. ἀπ. acy. (Theognis, 81, 
ὁμόφρονα θυμὸν ἔχοντες) ; frequently τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν, Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 11; Phil. ii. 2; similar expressions, 1 Cor. i. 10; Eph. iv. 3; Phil. 
iii. 16; Luther: “like-minded.” — συμπαθεῖς, “ sympathizing,” in N. T. az. Aey.; 
the verb, Heb. iv. 15, x. 34; for the explanation, comp. Rom. xii. 15. Ocecu- 
menius explains: συμπάθεια" ὁ πρὸς τοὺς κακῶς πάσχοντας ὡς Kal ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς ἔλεος; 
where, however, it is incorrect to limit the application to suffering only. 
Bengel: ὁμόφρ. : mente, συμπαθεῖς : affectu in rebus secundis et adversis. — φιλά- 
δελφοι, “brotherly,” Luther; also dz. Aey.; the substantive occurs in chap. i. 22. 
- εὐσπλαγχνοι to be found, besides here, in Eph. iv. 32, “compassionate ;” in 
classical Greek: qui robustis est visceribus, as in Hippocr., p. 89 C; and figura- 
tively equal to εὐκάρδιος, ἀνδρεῖος ; in the sense of compassionate it does not 
occur in the classics. — ταπεινύφρονες. am. Aey.: the ταπεινοφροσύνη (humility) as 


tion. Hofmann adds to the interpretation, 
that ‘‘the sighs of the wife bar the road to the 
husband’s prayers, by accusing him to God 
before his prayer, thus rendered worthless, 
reaches: Him.” But this is a thought alto- 
gether foreign to the context. 

1 Although in ver. 7 it is the husbands who 
are addressed, still, as the verse treats of their 
behavior towards their wives, ὑμῶν can well 
apply to both. 

2 Hieronymus, Oecumenius, etc., apply the 
words, according to 1 Cor, vii. 3, “" δὰ honorem 
impertiendum uxoribus a viris, qui sit absti- 
nentia a congressu, ut orationi vacare possint ”” 
(Lorinus), which is connected with the false 


interpretation of συνοικοῦντες ; Nicol. de Lyra 
says more correctly: ‘‘cum vir et uxor non 


‘sunt bene concordes, minus possunt orationi 


vacare.”” The Scholion in Matthaei, p. 199, is 
inadequate: ὃ yap περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν θόρυβος τῶν 
κατὰ Θεὸν ἔργων ἐμπόδιον. 

8 Pott explains erroneously, by appeal to 
1 Tim. i. 5: “Pro κατὰ δὲ τὸ τέλος SUMMA 
cohortationum mearum jam eo redit’’ (in like 
manner Erasmus, Grotius, Wolf, Steiger, etc.). 
Oecumenius marks the transition very well 
thus: τὶ χρὴ ἰδιολογεῖσθαι ; ἁπλῶς πᾶσι φημί" 
τοῦτο γὰρ τέλος καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ὁ σκόπος ἐφορᾷ 
τῆς σωτηρίας. 


284 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


well before God (Acts xx. 19) as towards our neighbor (chap. v. 5, Phil. 
ii. 3, where it is joined with σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ) ; here, with the latter refer- 
ence. — Calvin: humilitas praecipuum conservandae amicitiae vinculum. Hof- 
mann justly questions whether “ ὑποτάσσομαι, the leading idea of the series 
of exhortations which here comes to a close, is, as it were, echoed in ταπει- 
vogp.” (Wiesinger). For a panegyric on humility, see Lorinus in loc. In 
the classics ταπεινόφρων means “ mean-spirited and faint-hearted.” The word 
φιλόφρονες (spurious here) is explained by Gerhard: gui student facere ea quae 
alteri amica sunt et grata. The first three expressions show the loving rela- 
tion in which Christians stand to each other; the last two (or three), the 
conduct of Christians towards all without distinction (Hofmann). 

Ver. 9. Behavior towards the hostile world. μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ 
κακοῦ]. The same phrase occurs, Rom. xii. 17; 1 Thess. v. 15: comp. Matt. 
v. 43 ff. — ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας : comp. chap. 11. 23.1— τοὐναντίον δὲ εὐλογοῦν- 
τες, 1.6., in return for κακόν and λοιδορία; εὐλογεῖν in the N. T., when used of 
man, is equal to bona apprecari, opposed to καταρᾶσθαι; cf. Matt. v. 44; Luke 
vi. 28; Rom. xii. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 12; Jas. iii. 9. Taken in this sense 
(Wiesinger, Briickner, Hofmann ),? it expresses simply the opposite of the 
preceding λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας. It is more in harmony with the context, 
however, to understand it as referring equally to κακὸν avr? κακοῦ ; in which 
case it will have a wider sense, and be equivalent to “:wishing well and 
showing kindness by word and deed” (Fronmiiller). This is supported by 
the subsequent εὐλογίαν; nor does the N. T. usage stand in the way, in so 
far as in 2 Cor. ix. 5, 6, at least, evAoya denotes something accomplished by 
human action, though Hofmann strangely seeks to lessen its force by under- 
standing it of “a personal greeting.” —dér εἰς τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε : comp. chap. 
ii. 21. — ἕνα εὐλογίαν κληρονομήσητε.] From chap. ii. 21 it is natural to take 
εἰς τοῦτο as referring to what precedes (εὐλογοῦντες) (Oecumenius, Grotius, 
Calvin, Steiger, De Wette-Briickner, Fronmiiller, Reiche, Hofmann, etc.) ; 
in which case iva would belong either to εὐλογοῦντες, ὅτι... ἐκλήθητε thus 
forming a parenthesis, or to ἐκλήθητε. But in the first case the close con- 
nection of the clauses is broken, whilst in the second the somewhat inade- 
quate idea arises, that we are called upon to bless, in order that we ourselves 
may obtain a blessing. It is therefore better to take εἰς τοῦτο with the 
subsequent iva (Luther, Beza, Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.); comp. 
chap. iv. 6; John xviii. 37; Rom. xiv. 9. The consciousness that we, as 
Christians, are called to obtain a blessing, should be an incitement to us 
to bring blessing to others; the more so, that otherwise we shall fall short 
of the blessing to which we are called. On εὐλογίαν Bengel rightly remarks: 
benedictionem aeternam, cujus primitias jam nunc pii habent. If εἰδότες before 
ὅτι be the correct reading, it must be taken as in chap. 1. 18. 


1 Nicol. de Lyra: ‘* Non reddentes malum 
pro malo in factis injuriosis, nec maledictam 
pro maledicta in verbdis contentiosis.” 

2 Schott no doubt insists that the blessing 
of man is accomplished in word only and not 
in deed; but he does not say whether it means 
a wish expressed in prayer (bona apprecari), 


or whether any operation through the word is 
to be understood, for he renders εὐλογεῖν by 
‘*to bestow good in word.” If the former be 
implied, then it is wrong to say ‘‘ that God’s 
blessing is in truth accompanied by deeds, but 
man’s must stop short at the word.”’ If the 
second, then man’s blessing is also in deed. 


CHAP. III. 10-12. 285 


Vv. 10-12. Quoted from Ps. xxxiv. 13-17, LXX., and strengthening 
the foregoing exhortations by a reference to the divine judgment. In the 
original the first clause forms an interrogation, to which the following 
clauses, in the second person imperative, give the answer. —6 ὁ γὰρ θέλων ζωὴν 
ἀγαπᾷν, καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς. The translation of the LXX., an inexact 
reproduction of the Hebrew,! runs: τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὁ θέλων ζωὴν, ἀγαπῶν 
ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς ; Peter’s deviation from it by the conjunction οὗ θέλων ἀγαπᾷν is 
striking. — θέλων is not used adverbially here, equivalent to “fain;” but 
neither must another conception be substituted for ἀγαπᾷν; De Wette: “he 
who will show? love for life” (i.e., a yearning desire after it). The idea 
“show,” besides being an arbitrary introduction, is inappropriate, inasmuch 
as it is love of life itself, and not the showing of it, that is here in question. 
Wiesinger is more happy: “He who is really in earnest as to the love of 
life.” θέλων is then to be explained on the principle that love of ζωῇ, no 
less than the possession of it, is conditioned by a certain course of conduct 
on the part of man. Bengel, appealing to Eccles. ii. 17, interprets still 
better: qui vult ita vivere, ut ipsum non taedeat vitae ; i.e., who will have life so 
that he can love it; so, too, Schott; similarly Hofmann, only that the latter 
unnecessarily understands ἀγαπᾷν to mean simply “to enjoy a thing.” — καὶ 
ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς : with ἰδεῖν in this connection, comp. Luke ii. 26; Heb. 
xi. 5; John iii. 3. — The passage in the Psalms has evidently reference to 
earthly happiness; according to De Wette, on the other hand, the apostle 
had the future and eternal life in view here; this, however, is not the case, 
for in the passage before us the reference is likewise to the present life 
(Wiesinger, Schott, and Briickner), only it must be observed that for the 
believer happiness in this life consists in something different from that of 
the man of the world; to the former, days of suffering also may be ἡμέραι 
ἀγαθαί. If this be correct, yap cannot refer to the thought immediately pre- 
ceding, but only “to the whole exhortation, vv. 8,9” (Wiesinger, Schott). 
— παυσάτω, «.7.4.]. The LXX., keeping to the Hebrew original, here and in 
what follows preserve the second person. — παύειν, “lo cause to cease, to hold 
back ;” in classical Greek never joined with ἀπό; the subsequent genitive 
τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι stands in conformity with the use of the verb among the 
Greeks; comp. Winer, p. 305 (E. T., 325 f.).—xaxév has a wider range 
than δόλος ; there is no ground for limiting the application of the term here 
simply to words of reprimand (De Wette). With δόλος, comp. chap. ii. 1, 22. 
—Ver. 11. ἐκκλινάτω δὲ, κ.τ.λ.1. ἐκκλίνειν ἀπό; comp. Rom. xvi. 17. The 
same thought in the same words, Ps. xxxvii. 27; comp. further, Isa. i. 16, 
17; Rom. xii. 9. — δέ, if it be genuine, serves to bring into prominence the 


1 In the original Hebrew the passage is : — 
DMN yan wyn-p 
20 DIN Ὁ. IT 
2 Similarly already the Glossa interl.: qui 
vult ostendere, se dilectionem habere.’” — 
Lorinus thinks that the combination of the 


two words serves to intensify the idea. ‘si 
recte dicitur quis concupiscere, desiderare 


(Ps. exviii. 20), quidni velle, quod est verbum 
generale, amare? Innuit duplicatio non solum 
vehementiam desiderii amorisve, sed infirmi- 
tatem quoque carnis revocantis subinde vol- 
untatem, ne ita velit acriter et assiduo.” But 
in Ps, exviii. (Vulg., *‘ concupivit anima mea 
desiderare justificationes tuas”’) the connec- 
tion 1s different from here. 


280 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


new idea, distinct from the preceding. —¢yrnoarw, x.7.A.: διώκειν (comp. 
1 Tim. vi. 11, etc.), stronger than ζητεῖν (comp. Matt. vi. 33; Col. 111. 1). — 
The first half contains the general thought, the second emphasizes one more 
special. Although the exhortations of the apostle refer more particularly 
to the conduct of Christians towards their persecutors, yet they are not 
confined to this, but go beyond it (in opposition to Schott). — Ver. 12. ὅτι 
ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου, x.7.A.]. ὅτι is inserted by the apostle in order to mark more 
precisely the connection of thought. The exhortations are founded on a 
reference to the manner of God’s dealings. On the first hemistich Bengel 
remarks: inde vitam habent et dies bonos. The apostle omits the words τοῦ 
ἐξολοθρεῦσαι ἐκ γῆς τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν in the Psalm, added to πρόσωπον... κακά 
(not because, as De Wette thinks, he considered them too strong), and thus 
deprives the last member of the verse of a nearer definition. Calvin, 
Grotius, Beza, De Wette, accordingly take the ἐπί of this member in a 
sense different from that which it has in the first, namely, as conveying the 
idea of “punishment,” equivalent to “against;” this, however, is arbitrary. 
Hensler, Augusti, and Steiger find in all three members the expression of 
“attentive observation” only; but this view—itself, according to the 
thought, inadequate — is opposed by the particle dé, which indicates rather 
a contrast, and is not to be translated, with Hensler, by “but also.” If, 
now, the antithesis be not contained in ἐπί, it can be sought for only in 
πρόσωπον, Which, though in itself doubtless a vor media (comp. Num. vi. 25, 
26; Ps. iv. 7), is nevertheless in this passage of the Psalms to be thought 
of as one full of wrath, and, as such, was present to the mind of the apostle. 
Strictly speaking, indeed, this should have been expressed; but not neces- 
sarily so, since the antithesis between this and the preceding member of 
the verse makes it sufficiently apparent. A similar interpretation is given 
by Wiesinger, Briickner, and Schott. 

Ver. 13 serves further to emphasize the exhortation to well-doing, and 
at the same time introduces the following paragraph, in which Peter calls 
upon the Christians to suffer persecutions patiently. — «ai unites what 
follows with what precedes. A new reason, the truth of which is attested 
by the thought contained in ver. 12, is added in ver. 13 to the argument 
advanced for the preceding exhortation of ver. 12, The sense is: Do good, 
for to the good God is gracious, with the wicked He is angry; and those 
who do good, for this very reason none can harm. — τίς ὁ κακώσων ὑμᾶς : an 
impressive and passionate question (stronger than a simple negative), in 
which must be noted the form ὁ κακώσων, sc. ἐστί instead of κακώσει, as also 
the sharp contrast between κακοῦν and the subsequent ἀγαθοῦ. “Do harm,” 
as a rendering of κακοῦν (Wiesinger, De Wette), is too weak. The word is 
used for the most part of ill-treatment (Acts vii. 6, 19, xii. 1, xviii. 10), and 
denotes here, with reference to the preceding κακά, such evil-doing as is 
really harmful for him who suffers it. It is possible that the apostle had 
in his mind Isa. 1. 9, LXX.: ἰδοὺ κύριος κύριος βοηθῆσει μοι, τίς κακώσει we. The 
interrogative form expresses the sure confidence of the apostle, that to 
those who do good, no one either will or can do harm. Steiger’s interpre- 
tation is too pointless: “and indeed who then will seek to do you harm, as 


CHAP. III. 14. 287 
you imagine, if you really,” ete. ;! for the reservation must be added that 
every proverb has this peculiarity, that it is not without exception (Benson), 
or that the statement in the oratio popularis must not be taken too strictly. 
The strong and consoling expression of an unshaken faith is thus reduced 
to a somewhat empty commonplace.?— édv τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ γένησθε]. τοῦ 
ἀγαθοῦ was taken by some of the older interpreters (Lorin., Aret., etc.) to 
be the genitive masc., probably on account of the article (as distinguished 
from the anarthrous ἀγαθόν, ver. 11). Weiss also thinks that by it Christ 
perhaps may be understood. Most commentators, however, correctly regard 
it as the neuter; comp. ver. 11. The article is put, inasmuch as in this 
“term all the single virtues, formerly mentioned, are included ; it stands 
first by way of emphasis. — ζηλωταῖ ; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 12; Tit. ii. 14. If 
the reading μιμηταί be adopted, its connection with the neuter is somewhat 
singular, still the verb μιμεῖσθαι does occur with names of things; comp. 
Heb. xiii. 7; 3 John 11. 

Ver. 14. ἀλλ΄ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε]. ἀλλά expresses the antithesis to the nega- 
tion contained in the preceding question : “but even though you should suffer ;” 
ef. Winer, p. 275 (E. T., 367); a species of restriction which, however, is 
not intended to weaken the force of the foregoing thought. No doubt the 
possibility of suffering is admitted, yet in such a way that the Christian is 
considered blessed on account of that suffering. πάσχειν is not identical 
with κακοῦσθαι, but, as Benge] rightly remarks, levius verbum quam κακοῦσθαι. 
Every Christian has a πάσχειν, but he need never fear a κακοῦσθαι. ὃ --- διὰ 
δικαιοσύνην recalls Matt. v. 10. δικαιοσύνη is here (cf. chap. ii. 24) synony- 
mous with τὸ ἀγαθόν and ἡ ἀγαθὴ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφῆ, ver. 16.— μακάριοι: se. 
ἐστέ. Even suffering itself contributes to your blessedness. — τὸν δὲ φόβον, 
x.7.4.]. These and the words which begin the following verse are “a free 
use” (Schott) of the passage, Isa. viii. 12, 18, LXX.: τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ (i.e., 
τοῦ λαοῦ) ob μὴ φοβηθῆτε, οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε" κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε. The thought 
here is not quite the same, the sense of the Old-Testament passage being: 
do not share the terror of the people, and do not be moved by what alarms 
them. If φόβος be here taken objectively, then φόβος αὐτῶν is “the fear ema- 


1 Gualther’s paraphrase is not less insipid : 
“Quis est, scilicet tam impudens et iniquus, 
qui vos affligat, si beneficentiae sitis aemula- 
tores?”’ Wiesinger’s interpretation also is 
inappropriate: “If ye follow my exhortations, 
it is to be hoped,” etc. —The words do not 
hint that “the trials which the readers had 
endured were not altogether undeserved on 
their part” (Wiesinger). 

2 Schott’s interpretation, according to which 
κακοῦν is ** to make evil-doers in the judgment 
of God,” is altogether wide of the mark. 
Although κακοῦν, --- corresponding to the He- 
brew J) wr, —as applied to a judge, may 
mean, ‘to condemn,” or properly, ‘‘ to declare 
a person a kaxés,” it does not follow therefrom 
that it may also have the meaning of ‘ causing 
God to declare a person a κακός." 


3 These words also are wrongly explained 
by Schott, since he takes ἀλλ᾽ as quickly deny- 
ing the previous statement, and introducing a 
new turn of thought, separates et καὶ from 
each other, and connects καὶ with πάσχοιτε in 
the sense of ‘‘even.’? For the first, Schott 
appeals to Hartung’s Partixkell., ΤΙ., Ὁ. 87; for 
the second, to Hartung, I., p. 140, note; but 
without any right to do so. For, ds to the 
Jormer, he overlooks that ἀλλ᾽ here follows 
on a sentence negative in meaning; and as to 
the latter, that καί has here a position, in 
which a separation of it from εἰ could not for 
a moment be thought of. The apostle would 
have expressed the idea: ‘if for righteous- 
ness’ sake you should have to experience (not 
only not happiness and blessing, but) even 
suffering,” by εἰ dia δικαιοσύνην καὶ πάσχοιτε. 


288 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


nating from them,” or “the fear which they excite” (De Wette, Briickner) ; 
cf. Ps. xci. 5: ob φοβηθήσῃ ἀπὸ φόβου νυκτερινοῦ ; cf. also in this chapter ver. 6. 
If, on the other hand, it be taken in a subjective sense, then αὐτῶν is equal 
to “of them,” therefore: “do not fear with the fear of them, i.e., do not be 
afraid of them” (Schott and Hofmann also). In both cases the meaning 
is substantially the same. Wiesinger is inaccurate when he takes φόβος 
subjectively, and interprets αὐτῶν as De Wette does. 

Ver. 15. κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστόν]. κύριον, in Isaiah equivalent to τὸν Θεόν; a 
substitution of this kind is frequently found in the N. T., where reference 
is made to passages in the O. T., and can be easily explained on the prin- 
ciple that a consciousness distinctively Christian was asserting itself; “κύριον 
is placed first, as antithesis to αὐτῶν" (Wiesinger). Schott denies that κύριον 
stands in apposition to τὸν Χριστόν, holding that κύριον is to be taken rather 
as a predicate of the object, equivalent. to “as Lord ;” for this reason, that 
κύριος Stands here without the article, and that the simple conjunction of 
κύριος and Χριστός does not occur. But against the first objection the expres- 
sion κύριος ὁ Θεός may be urged, and against the second the verse Luke ii. 11. 
It is more natural, and at the same time more in harmony with the passage 
in the O. T., to connect κύριος directly with τὸν Χριστόν : “but . . . the Lord, 
the Messiah.” — ἁγιάσατε, in antithesis to φοβηθῆτε and ταραχθῆτε; “hold, i.e., 
honor, fear as holy” (De Wette) ; the sanctifying comprehends within it the 
fear of God; οἵ. Isa. viii. 18, xxix. 23; it thus forms the contrast to the fear 
of man; where the former is, the latter must give way. — ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν 
added by the apostle in order to mark the inward nature of the ἁγιάζειν. --- 
ἕτοιμοι]. Whether dé be the original reading or not, this clause is undoubt- 
edly intimately connected in thought with that which precedes it. Without 
δέ this being ready is conceived as a proof of the ἁγιάζειν Xp.; with δέ the 
thought is this, that the ἁγιάζειν Xp., «.7.4., which banishes all fear of man, 
should not exclude the ἀπολογία before men (De Wette, Wiesinger). Hof- 
mann takes the particle here as equal to “rather;” but against this is the 
fact that here κύριον... ὑμῶν would have to be taken as a simple paren- 
thesis, inasmuch as δέ would refer only to what precedes, and a second 
antithesis would then be added to the already antithetical κύριον δὲ, «.7.2.— 
ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ, K.7.A.]. ἕτοιμος πρός, cf. Tit. iii. 1.— “The injunc- 
tion exempts neither time (dei) nor person (παντί) ” (Steiger). — To limit its 
application to a judicial examination is arbitrary, and militates against 
παντί. --- ἀπολογία not equal to satisfactio (Vulg.), but here rather quaevis 
responsio, qua ratio fidet (more correctly spe) nostrae redditur (Vorstius; Phil. 
i. 7,16; Acts xxvi. 2).— παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι, «.7.4.]. The dative depending on 
ἀπολογίαν, cf. 1 Cor. ix. 3; for αἰτέω with double accusative, cf. Winer, p. 
212 f. (E. T., 227). λόγον αἰτεῖν, “to demand account of,” only here, cf. chap. 
iv. 5; Rom. xiv. 12.— περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος]. περί: as to its nature and 
ground. — ἐλπίς not equivalent to πίστις (Calvin: spes hic per synecdochen pro 
Jide capitur), but the hope of the Christian looking, on the ground of faith, 
into the future salvation.1— ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραὕτητος καὶ φόβου]. If ἀλλά be the 


1 That this “‘ account ” had special reference dom of Christ was of this world, is nowhere 
to the removal of the suspicion that the king- alluded to in the context (De Wette, Schott). 


CHAP. III. 16. 289 
true reading, as there can hardly be any doubt it is, it will serve to make 
more sharply prominent the way and manner in which the ἀπολογία should 
be conducted; De Wette: “as it were: but remember.” — μετά, to be con- 
nected not with ἕτοιμοι, but with ἀπολογίαν ; πραύτητος opposed to passionate 
zeal. φόβου is to be applied directly neither to God (Aretius: reverentia et 
timor Dei; thus Weiss also, p. 169), nor to men before whom testimony is to 
be borne (according to some, the civil authorities) ; but it denotes the being 
afraid — based, of course, on the fear of God —of every unseemly kind 
of ἀπολογία, and stands especially opposed to all arrogant self-confidence 
(Wiesinger). 

Ver. 16. συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθὴν] These words are taken by several 
interpreters (Bengel, Steiger, De Wette, etc.) with ἁγιάσατε, ver. 14, as co- 
ordinate with ἕτοιμοι; Wiesinger construes them with ἕτοιμοι, aS Subordinate 
to it. The latter is to be preferred, for ovveid, éy. denotes “the point essen- 
tially important, to being ever prepared to give an answer in a right man- 
ner” (Wiesinger). But it is better still to assume that it —like μετὰ πραύτη- 
toc — belongs in a loose way to ἀπολογίαν, equivalent to “with good conscience,” 
i.e., in that your walk does not give the lie to your confession. Calvin says 
correctly: quia parum auctoritatis habet sermo absque vita. — iva ἐν ᾧ, k.7.A.]. 
The construction is here the same as in chap. ii. 12; see the exposition of 
this passage, where, too, Schott’s interpretation of ἐν ᾧ, equal to “in this, 
that,” is considered. The conjunctive of the Rec. καταλαλῶσιν would repre- 
sent the case as possible, equal to “in which they may possibly slander you.” — 
iva, as a final particle, refers to the whole preceding thought, especially to 
ovveid, Ex. ἀγαθήν. ---- καταισχυνθῶσιν]. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 14: “that they may be 
put to shame,” i.e., since their slanders are openly proved to be lies. — oi ἐπη- 
ρεάζοντες, x.7.4.]. The subject stands, by way of emphasis, at the end of the 
sentence. ἐπηρεάζειν, “to revile,” Matt. v. 44; Luke vi. 28. Hensler distin- 
guishes, without any ground, the ἐπηρεάζοντες from the καταλαλοῦντες, as differ- 
ent persons; the former he considers to be the accusers of the Christians, 
who bring the slanders of others before the judge. — ὑμῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ 
ἀναστροφῆν, 1.e., “the good life which you lead in Christ (i.e., as Christians).” 

Ver. 17. κρεῖττον γάρ]. γάρ gives the ground of the exhortation contained 
in ovveid. ἔχ. dy.; the explanation of this κρεῖττον is contained in chap. ii. 19 ff. 
— dyabonuoivras . . . πάσχειν]. The connection between these two ideas is 
the same as that between ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες, chap. ii. 20, the parti- 
ciples giving not’ simply the special circumstances, as Hofmann asserts, but 
the reason of the suffering; this Schott denies as regards the first member: 
ἀγαθοποιοῦντας.3 --- The parenthetical clause: εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα Tod Θεοῦ, belongs 


And Schott is hardly justified in giving the 
apostle’s exhortations special application ‘to 
the divinely ordained ordinances of natural 
social life.’ 

1 Hofmann says, “that it should not be 
joined with ἀπολογία, for the meaning is, that 
they should do that whereunto they must be 
prepared with cagerness, and a good conscience 
which they should bring to it.” To this it is 


to be replied, that the ἀπολογία itself is pre- 
cisely the thing for which they are to be ready. 
It is evidently arbitrary “ to supplement an 
imperative (which?) to ἀλλά, and to connect 
συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ay. With it.” 

2 It must, indeed, be noted that those suf- 
ferings which the believers, as such, have to 
endure from the unbelieving world, overtake 
them because of their ἀγαθοποιεῖν; Christians 


290 © THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

to πάσχειν ; the optative denotes the possibility: “if such should be the will of 
God.” —On the pleonasm: θέλοι τὸ θέλημα, see Winer, p. 562 (KE. T., 604). 
The thought here is not quite the same as that of chap. ii. 20. There, chief 
stress is laid on ὑμομένειν, to which no special prominence is here given. 
But, as in the former case the exhortation is enforced by reference to Christ, 
i.e., to His sufferings, so is it here also, in the following paragraph on to the 
end of the chapter, only that in this passage the typical character of His 
sufferings is less emphasized, whilst the exaltation which followed them is’ 
brought specially forward. 

Ver. 18. First, mention of the death of Christ by way of giving the 
reason. — ὅτε καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθε (ἀπέθανε)]. ὅτι is connected 
with the idea immediately preceding, and gives the ground of the κρεῖττον: καὶ 
Χριστός (as in chap. ii. 21) places the sufferings which the Christians have to 
bear, as ἀγαθοποιοῦντες, side by side with the sufferings of Christ, περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, 
so that καί must be taken as referring not to ἔπαθε (ἀπέθανε) only (as is done 
by most commentators, among them De Wette), but, as the position of the 
words (περὶ ἁμαρτ. before ἔπαθε) clearly shows, to περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθε (ἀπέθανε) 
(Wiesinger, Briickner, Schott). _Hofmann’s application of it to the whole 
“staternent here with respect to Christ” is open to objection, from the fact 
that in what follows there are elements introduced which go too far beyond 
the comparison here instituted. Christ’s sufferings were on account of sin, 
and such also should be the sufferings of the Christians.1_ This does not 
preclude the possibility of His sufferings having had a significance different 
from what theirs can have. This peculiar significance of Christ’s sufferings 
is marked by δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, or, as Schott holds, by ἅπαξ. ἅπαξ gives 
prominence to the fact that in relation to His subsequent life (θανατοθείς. . . 
ζωοποιηθεὶς) Christ’s suffering took place but once, as in Heb. ix. 27, 28 (Hof- 
mann: “once it took place that He died the death He did die, and what 
followed thereon forms, as what is enduring, a contrast to what passed over 
but once”); doubtless not without implying the secondary idea, that the 
sufferings of Christians take place only once also, and come to an end with 
this life.2— περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, which states yet more indefinitely the purpose of 


who, though confessing Christ, at the same 
time live entirely like the children of the 
world, are well liked by the world. 

1 The subsequent δίκαιος proves that the 
sins for which Christ suffered were not His 
own sins; thus also the believer’s sufferings 
should not arise out of his own sins, he should 
not suffer as a κακοποιῶν, but as an ἀγαθοποιῶν. 
Rejecting this application, Hofmann finds the 
point of comparison in this, ‘‘ that we should 
let the sins which those who do us wrong 
commit, be to us the cause of sufferings to 
ΠΕ 02)1 

2 Oecumenius finds in ἅπαξ an allusion to 
τὸ τοῦ παθόντος δραστήριόν τι καὶ δυνατόν, ΟΥ̓ 
to the brevity also of the sufferings. Gerhard 
unites all three elements by saying: ‘ut 
ostendat (Ap.) passionis Christi brevitatem et 


perfectionem sacrificii et ut doceat Christum 
non amplius passioni fore obnoxium.’’— Ac- 
cording to Pott, it is also meant to express the 
contrast to the frequent repetition of the O. T. 
sacrifices, —an application entirely foreign to 
the context. According to Schott, ἅπαξ indi- 
cates that Christ suffered once for all, so that 
any further suffering of the same kind is 
neither necessary nor possible. This is no 
doubt correct; but it does not follow that 
Peter — whose words combine the typical and 
specifically peculiar significance of the suffer- 
ings of Christ —should not have had in his 
mind the application of ἅπαξ to believers, as 
above stated. It is with ἅπαξ as with περὶ 
ἁμαρτιῶν; it is impossible for believers to 
suffer περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν in the same sense that 
Christ suffered περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. 


CHAP. III. 18. 291 


Christ’s sufferings, “on account of sin,” finds a more precise definition in 
what follows. — δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, “as the just for the unjust;” comp. Rom. 
v. 6: ὑπέρ, equivalent to in commodum, is not in itself, indeed, equal to ἀντί; 
but the contrast here drawn between δίκαιος and ἀδίκων suggests that in the 
general relation, the more special one of substitution is implied (Weiss, p. 
261); comp. chap. ii. 21. The omission of the article is due to the fact that 
the apostle holds it of importance to mark the character of the one as of the 
other. — iva ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ gives the purpose of ἔπαθεν (ἀπέθανε), Which 
latter is more closely defined by that which immediately precedes and fol- 
lows}; προσάγειν does not mean “to sacrifice” (Luther, Vulg.: ut nos offerret 
Deo), neither “to reconcile;” but “to bring to,” i.e., “to bring into communion 
with God,” which goes still beyond the idea of reconciliation; the latter pre- 
supposes Christ’s death for us; the former, the life of Him who died for us. 
Weiss niaintains, without sufficient reason (p. 260), that the word here points 
to the idea of the Christian’s priesthood (chap. ii. 5). The verb occurs here 
only; the substantive προσαγωγῆ, Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 18, 111. 12.1 — θανατωθεὶς 
μὲν σαρκί, ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι].Ό This adjunct does not belong to ἔπαθεν (De 
Wette), but to προσαγάγῃ (Wiesinger); it is subjoined, in order to show 
prominently how the προσάγειν can take place through Christ; the chief 
stress is laid on the second member. According to Schott, both participles 
are to be considered as ‘‘an exposition of dzaf;” this assumption is contra- 
dicted, on the one hand, by the distance between them and the latter word; 
and, on the other, that they must necessarily be attached to a verb. — The 
antithesis between the two members of this sentence is strongly marked by 
piv... δέ. The datives σαρκί, πνεύματι, state with reference to what the 
verbal conceptions θανατωθείς, ζωοποιηθείς, hold good; “they serve to mark 
the sphere to which the general predicate is to be thought of as restricted” 
(Winer) ; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 34: ἁγία καὶ σώματι καὶ πνεύματι; Col. 11. 5; τῇ σαρκὶ 
ἄπειμι, τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἰμι. Schott explains —somewhat ambiguously — 
the datives “as general more precise adverbial definitions,” which state 
«“ what is of determinative importance in both facts,” and “the nature of the 
actual condition produced by them.” — πνεύματι is by some understood instru- 
mentally; incorrectly, for capxi cannot be taken thus; the two members of 
the clause correspond so exactly in form, that the dative in the one could not 
be explained differently from the dative in the other, as Wiesinger, Weiss, 
von Zezschwitz, Briickner, Schott, and Fronmiiller justly acknowledge. — σαρκὶ 
... πνεύματι; this antithesis occurs frequently in the N. T.; with reference to 
the person of Christ, besides in this passage, in Rom. i. 3: κατὰ σάρκα... 
κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, and, 1 Tim. iii. 16: ἐν σαρκὲ. .. ἐν πνεύματι (cf. also 
chap. iv. 6). --- The antithesis of the two conceptions proves it to be erro- 
neous to assign to the one term a sphere different from that of the other, 
and to suppose σάρξ to mean the body of Christ, and πνεῦμα the Spirit of God. 
Antithesis clare ostendit quod dicatur in alia quidem sui parte aut vitae ratione 


1 It is certainly very doubtful whether the manner in which we endure undeserved suf- 
purpose also of the death of Christ, here  ferings, to bring those by whom we are 
stated, ‘admits of application to us,” in that wronged to bethink themselves, and to lead 
“it should likewise be our object, by the them to a knowledge of Christ” (Hofmann). 


292 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

mortificatus, in alia autem vivificatus (Flacius). It must be observed that 
both are here used as general conceptions (Hofmann), without a pronoun to 
' mark them as designations applicable only to Christ; for which reason σάρξ 
cannot relate exclusively to the human, and πνεῦμα to the divine nature of 
Christ.1 As general conceptions (that is, as applicable not to Christ alone, 
but to human nature generally), σάρξ and πνεῦμα must, however, not be iden- 
tified with σῶμα and ψυχῆ.2 For σάρξ is that side of human nature in virtue 
of which man belongs to the earth, is therefore an earthly creature, and 
accordingly perishable like every thing earthly; and πνεῦμα, on the other 
hand, is that side of his nature by which he belongs to a supernatural sphere 
of existence, is not a mere creature of earth, and is accordingly destined also 
to an imperishable existence. — Wiesinger (with whom Zezschwitz agrees) 
deviates from this interpretation thus far only, that he understands πνεῦμα, 
not as belonging to the nature of man, “but as that principle of union with 
God which is bestowed upon man at regeneration.” This deviation may 
arise from the reluctance to attribute a πνεῦμα to man as such (also in his 
sinful condition) ; as, however, according to Peter, the souls of the departed 
are πνεύματα (ver. 19), it is thus presupposed that an unregenerate man also 
possesses a πνεῦμα during his earthly existence. It must also be observed 
that σάρξ and πνεῦμα are here not ethical antitheses, but are contrasted with 
each other as natural distinctions. — θανατωθεὶς . . . ζωοποιηθείς]. 
correctly interpreted by Wahl here, as in other passages of the N. T., by 
capitis damno, morti addico; for although it may sometimes occur in this 
sense in the classics, still in the N. T. it means only to kill. By θανατωθεὶς 
σαρκί, then, the apostle says of Christ, that He was put to death in His 
earthly human nature (which He along with all the rest of mankind pos- 
sessed),# i.e., at the hand of man by the crucifixion. —woroéw does not 


θανατόω in- 


1 According)\y, interpretations like those of 
Calvin are incorrect: ‘caro hic pro externo 
homine capitur, spiritus pro divina potentia, 
qua Christus victor a morte emersit; Beza: 
“πνεύματι, i.e., per divinitatem in ipso corpo- 
raliter habitantem, equal to ἐκ δυνάμεως Θεοῦ,᾽᾽ 
2 Cor. xiii. 4; Oecumenius: θανατωθεὶς μὲν TH 
φύσει τῆς σαρκός, τούτεστι TH ἀνθρωπίνῃ, avac- 
τὰς δὲ τῇ δυνάμει τῆς θεότητος. It is equally 
incorrect, with Weiss (p. 252), to understand 
σάρξ as meaning ‘‘ the human nature of Christ” 
(instead of which he no doubt also says: “ the 
earthly buman nature of Christ”’), and πνεῦμα 
as meaning “the pre-existent divine πνεῦμα 
communicated at baptism to the man Jesus” 
(which, as Weiss maintains, constitutes, ac- 
cording to Peter, the divine nature of Christ). 
Weiss, for the sole purpose of representing 
the apostle’s doctrinal conception as still in 
a very undeveloped state, imputes to Peter a 
view of the person of Christ which —as he 
himself says—is possessed of ‘a duality 
which somewhat endangers the unity of His 
person.” Nor has Wichelhaus hit the true 
explanation when he says: ‘ Peter here con- 


siders Christ as, on the one hand, a true man 
in body and soul, liable to all suffering . . .; 
and, on the other hand, in so far as He was 
anointed by the Holy Ghost.” 

2 σάρξ and σῶμα are proved to be two dis- 
tinct conceptions by the fact that, after the 
resurrection, man will have a σῶμα, but no 
σάρξ. The difference between πνεῦμα and 
Ψυχή is clear, from passages such as Matt. vi. 
25. If in other passages πνεῦμα be used as 
synonymous with ψυχή (comp., e. g., John xii. 
27 with John xiii. 21), this is explained by the 
two-sidedness of the human soul. 

3 To Weiss’s remark, that Peter terms that 
side of human nature by which man is ren- 
dered capable of religious life ψυχή, it must be 
replied that the ψυχή possesses such capacity 
for this very reason, that even under the power 
of the capé it has never ceased to be spiritual. 
In place of πνεύματι, ψυχῇ Would not be at all 
appropriate here, in the first place, because 
ψυχή forms no antithesis to σάρξ, and then 
because the idea of what is celestial, peculiar 
to πνεῦμα, would not find expression in it, 

4 Schott is wrong in maintaining that the an. 


CHAP. III. 18. 293 
mean “to preserve alive,” as several commentators explain, e.g., Bellarmin 
(De Christo, lib. iv. cap. 13), Hottinger, Steiger, and Giider, — this idea, in 
the Old as in the New Testament, being expressed by Gwoyoveiv and other 
words (see Zezschwitz on this passage); but “to make alive” (De Wette, 
Wiesinger, Weiss, Zezschwitz, Schott, Kohler,! Hofmann, and others); it 
often applies to the raising-up of the dead; cf. John v. 21; Rom. iv. 17; 
1 Cor. xv. 22, ete. In this sense alone does ζωοποιηθείς answer the preceding 
θανατωθείς.  Bengel: vivificatio ex antitheto ad mortificationem resolvi debet. 
The latter idea assumes the anterior condition to have been one of death, 
whilst the former — in contradiction to θανατ. ---- would presuppose one of life. 
Christ then, according to the apostle, entered into the actual state of death, 
that is, in so far as the σάρξ pertained to Him, so that His life in the flesh 
came to an end;? but from death He was brought back again to life, that 
is, was raised up, as far as the πνεῦμα pertained to Him, so that the new life 
was purely pneumatical. But the new life began by His re-uniting Himself 
as πνεῦμα to His σῶμα, so that thus this σῶμα itself became pneumatical.? — 
According to Bengel, with whom Schmid (Bibl. Theol.), Lechler, and Fron- 
miiller agree (comp. also Hahn, Neutest. Theol., i. 440), ζωοποιηθείς does not 
refer to the resurrection of Christ, but to His deliverance from the weakness 
of the flesh, effected by His death, and, based upon this, his transition to a 
higher life (which was followed by the resurrection). Against this, how- 
ever; is to be observed: (1) That the going of His πνεῦμα to the Father, 
connected with His death (Luke xxiii. 46), is, as little as His ascension, 
spoken of in Scripture as “a becoming quickened ;” (2) That as in θανατωθείς 
the whole man Christ is meant, the same must be the case in ζωοποιηθείς; and 
(3) That this view is based on what follows, which, however, if rightly 
interpreted, by no means renders it necessary. Buddeus is therefore en- 
tirely right when he says: vivificatio animae corporisque conjunctionem denotat.5 


tithesis to what is here said should be, *‘ that 
Christ was quickened according to His glorified 


ever: “ΑΒ it was the Christ living in the 
flesh who, by being put to death, ceased to be 


human nature; ” the antithesis to “ earthly,” 
however, is not “ glorified,’ but “ celestial.” 

1 “Zur Lebre von Christi Héllenfahrt,”’ in 
the Zeitschrift fiir luth. Theol u. Kirche, by 
Delitzsch and Guericke, 1864, H. 4. 

2 Schott substantially agrees with this inter- 
pretation, but thinks that the above expression 
does not say decidedly enough that “‘ this was 
an entire cessation of His life.” However, 
this ‘‘ entire” is saying too much, since σαρκί 
evidently points to a limitation. 

3 Hofmann says, not quite accurately 
(Schriftbeweis, 11. 1, p. 473): ‘* The antithe- 
sis θανατ., x. 7. A., denotes the end of life in 
the flesh, and the commencement of life in the 
spirit.” For spiritual life was in Christ during 
His life in the flesh, and after it, before His 
resurrection. At His death He committed 
His πνεῦμα to His Father; it was therefore in 
Him before, and continued to live after His 
death.— Hofmann remarks correctly, how- 


any longer in that bodily life in which from 
His birth He had existed, so His quickening 
of that which was dead is a restoration of a 
spiritual nature to a bodily life.’’ 

4 Bengel: “Simul atque per mortifica- 
tionem involucro infirmitatis in carne solutus 
erat, statim vitae solvi nesciae virtus modis 
novis et multis expeditissimis sese exserere 
coepit. Hane vivificationem necessario celeri- 
ter subsecuta est excitatio corporis ex morte 
et resurrectio e sepulcro.””— Schmid: ‘* The 
πνεῦμα is a principle which He possessed in a 
special manner, . . . this, in consequence of 
death, is set free from the trammels of sens- . 
uous bodily nature, it now enters upon its 
full rights, and develops in its fulness that 
ζωή Which was in Him.” 

5 Schott explains, indeed, ζωοποιηθείς rightly 
in itself, but he objects to the identification of 
ζωοποίησις With ἀνάστασις. and thinks that the 
former is the fundamental condition of 


294 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


Ver. 19. With this verse a new paragraph — extending to ver. 22 
inclusive — begins, closely connected by ἐν ᾧ (i. e., πνεύματι) with what 
precedes, and in which reference is made to the glory of Him who was 
quickened according to the Spirit. It may appear singular that in this 
passage Peter should make mention of those who were unbelieving in the 
days of Noah, and of baptism as the antitype of the water of the deluge; 
but this may be explained from the circumstance that he looks on the 
deluge as a type of the approaching judgment. It must be observed, that 
it is not so much the condemnation of the unbelieving, as the salvation of 
believers, that the apostle has here in his mind. — ἐν ὦ καὶ, κιτ.λ.: “Sin which 
(spirit) He also went and preached unto the spirits in prison (to them), which 
sometime were unbelieving when,” etc. The close connection of these words 
with what immediately precedes — by ἐν ὦ, se. πνεύματι ---- favors the view that 
ἐκήρυξε refers to an act of Christ which, as the ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι, He 
performed after His death, and that with reference to the spirits ἐν φυλακῇ 
of the unbelievers who had perished in the deluge. This is the view of 
the oldest Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church, as also of the greater 
number of later and modern theologians. Augustin, however, opposed it, 
and considered ἐκήρυξεν as referring to a preaching by Christ ἐν πνεύματι long 
before His incarnation, in the days of Noah, to the people of that gen- 
eration, upon which the judgment of the deluge came because of their 
unbelief. This view, after being adopted by several theologians of the 
Middle Ages, became prevalent in the Reformed Church. In recent times, 
it has been defended more especially by Schweizer, Wichelhaus, Besser, and 
Hofmann. The chief arguments which those who maintain it advance in 
opposition to that first mentioned, are the following: (1) The idea that 
Christ preached to the spirits ἐν φυλακῇ would be an isolated one occurring 
nowhere else in Scripture; and, further, preaching such as this, if conceived 
as judicial, would have been entirely useless, whilst, looked on as a procla- 
mation of salvation, it would stand in contradiction to the uniform teaching 
of Scripture regarding the state of man after death. To this, however, it 
must be replied, that isolated ideas are to be found expressed here and there 
in Scripture, and that the reconciliation of the idea of a salvation offered 
to the spirits ἐν φυλακῇ with the other doctrines of Scripture, can at most be 
termed a problem difficult of solution; nor must it be forgotten that the 
eschatological doctrines comprehend within them very many problems. 
(2) This view does not correspond with the tendency of the entire passage 
from ver. 17 to ver. 22, and therefore does not fit into the train of thought. 
But this assertion is to the point only if those who make it have themselves 
correctly understood the tendency of the passage, which in this instance 


the latter, which is the “side of the resur- 
rection concealed and as yet hidden in the 
depths” (?). But where does the apostle 
make any allusion to any such distinction 
between two sides in the resurrection of 
Christ? 

1 It must be observed that whilst Hofmann 
considers the preaching of Christ as having 


taken place through Noah, Schweizer most 
decidedly disputes this, and is of the opinion 
that it was addressed to Noah himself as well 
as to his contemporaries. In support of this, 
he very rightly appeals to the fact that Noah 
is not here —as 2 Pet. ii. 5 —termed a κῆρυξ. 
But he does not say by whom this preaching 
must be considered to have taken place. 


CHAP. III. 19. 295 


they have not done. (3) It cannot be understood how Peter comes so 
suddenly to speak of the spirits in prison. But, in reply, it may be urged, 
with at least equal justification, that it is not easy to understand how Peter 
comes so suddenly to speak of an act of Christ before His incarnation. 
(4) The want of the article before ἀπειθήσασι compels us to translate this 
participle not: “which sometime were unbelieving,” but: “when they 
sometime were unbelieving.” This, however, is not the case, since the 
participle, added with adjectival force to a substantive, is often enough 
joined to the latter without an article. If Peter had put the words πορευθεὶς 
ἐκήρυξε before τοῖς. . . πνεύμασι, no difficulty would have presented itself in 
the translation under dispute (“the sometime unbelieving spirits in prison ”). 
The translation to which preference is given is grammatically untenable.! — 
Finally, appeal has been made to the fact that καί is placed after ἐν ᾧ, indeed 
even to ἐν ᾧ itself; but a correct explanation offers no justification for so 
doing. Besides the close connection of the relative clause with that 
immediately preceding, the following points favor the interpretation 
attacked: (1) The correspondence of the πνεύματι to be supplied to ἐν ᾧ, 
with the subsequent πνεύμασιν; (2) πορευθείς, which must be taken in the 
same sense as the πορευθείς in ver. 22; (3) The fact that ποτέ does not stand 
with ἐκήρυξε, but in ver. 20 with ἀπειθήσασιν, which shows that the ἀπειθεῖν 
took place previous to the κηρύσσειν ; and, lastly, (4) The circumstance that 
had Peter closed his sentence with ἐκήρυξεν, it could have occurred to no one 
that Peter was here speaking of a preaching of Christ which took place in a 
time long gone by. —év ᾧ is not equivalent to διό (αἰτιολογικῶς with reference 
to ἔπαθε, Theophylact); but gvhilst ᾧ refers back to πνεύματι, ἐν ᾧ states in 
what condition Christ accomplished that which is mentioned in what 
follows,— He accomplished it not ἐν σαρκί (for after the caps He was put 
to death), but ἐν πνεύματι (for after the πνεῦμα He was made alive). ἐν 
stands here in a position similar to that which it holds in Rom. viii. 8, 
where, however, σάρξ and πνεῦμα form an, ethical antithesis, which here is 
not the case. Hofmann wrongly attributes to ἐν here an “instrumental 
force” equivalent to “by means of ;” he is induced to do so solely by his 
explanation of the πνεύματε to be supplied. Although it is evident that 
πνεύματι here must be taken in no sense different from that of the foregoing 
πνεύματι, Hofmann nevertheless holds it to be identical with the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ 
mentioned in chap. i. 11, while he himself says that the πνεύματι subjoined 
to ζωοποιηθείς cannot be understood of the Holy Ghost.?— Peter says, then, 


1 Hofmann, indeed, says that since the ex- 
pression is not tots ἀπειθήσασι, the translation 
should not be: “‘ those spirits in durance, which 
sometime were disobedient; ” but he grants 
that, from a grammatical point of view, it 
remains doubtful ‘* whether ποτέ signifies the 
past as related to the time of Christ’s preach- 
ing, or the past as regards the present of the 
writer.” " 

2 Hofmann says that the accusation made 
against him, that he effaces the distinction 


between πνεῦμα as a term used to designate 
the precise nature of Christ, and πνεῦμα as the 
third Person in the Trinity, is the result of 
that confusion of ideas by which “in the 
Spirit ’ and ‘as a Spirit” are understood to 
mean the same thing. But it must be replied 
that rather is the identification of two different 
ideas, contained in his interpretation, the result 
of the confusion of ideas, leading him as it 
does to hide the difference by defining πυεῦμα 
as “186 Spirit of Christ’s life.” 


296 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

that Christ, in the Spirit according to which He was made alive, preached 
to the spirits ἐν φυλακῇ, which cannot be understood to mean any thing else 
than that He did it as a πνεῦμα (in His pneumatical condition). -Fronmiiller 
erroneously interprets: “in the existence-form of a spirit separated from 
the body ; for the quickened Christ lives not as a simple spirit, but is in 
possession of a glorified spiritual body. — καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι πορευθεὶς 
ἐκήρυξεν]. By ra... πνεύματα are to be understood, neither angels (Heb. 
i. 14)? nor “men living upon the earth” (as Wichelhaus explains), but the 
souls of men already dead, as in Heb. xii. 23, which in Rev. vi. 9, xx. 4, 
Wisd. 111. 1, are called ψυχαί. ἐν φυλακῇ designates not only the place, but 
denotes also the condition in which the πνεύματα are. Hofmann wrongly — 
because in opposition to the uniform usage in the N. T.—denies all local 
reference to the expression, and would therefore translate ἐν φυλακῇ by “in 
durance.” The meaning is, that the πνεύματα were in prison as prisoners.? 
The expression occurs in the N. T. with the article and without it, and its 
more precise force here is clear from the passages, Rev. xx. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 4; 
Jude 6. It does not denote generally the kingdom of the dead (Lactant. 
Inst., I. 7, c. 21: omnes [animae] in una communique custodia detinentur), but 
that part of it which serves as abode for the souls of the ungodly until the 
day of judgment. The dative depends, indeed, on ἐκήρυξεν, not on πορευθείς; 
but the addition of the latter word gives prominence to the fact that Christ 
went to those spirits, and preached to them in that place where they were. 
Hofmann is not altogether wrong when, in support of his own view of the 
passage, he says: “the operation of the spirit of Christ, by which Noah 
was made the organ of His proclamation, might be termed a ‘going and 
preaching’ on the part of Christ” (comp. especially the passage, Eph. 
11. 17: ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο; see Meyer in loc., to which Hofmann might have 
appealed). But that πορευθείς cannot be so taken here, is shown by the 
πορευθείς In ver. 22, with which it must be identical in sense.* ἐκήρυξε is 
the same verb as that so often used in the N. T. of the preaching (not the 
teaching) of Christ and His apostles. Usually it is accompanied by an 
object (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστόν, or the like); but it is 
frequently, as here, used absolutely, cf. Matt. xi. 1; Mark i. 38, etc. —It 
cannot be concluded, with Zezschwitz, from the connection of this relative 
clause with ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι, that ζωοποίησιν illam spiritualem quasi funda- 
mentum fuisse concionis idemque argumentum ; nor does the word itself disclose 


/ 


1 Baur (Tiib. Theol. Jahrb. 1856, H. 2, p. 
215) understands it to mean the ἄγγελοι ἁμαρ- 
τήσαντες, 2 Pet. ii. 4, who, according to Gen. 
vi. 1 ff., had fallen previous to the deluge. 
This interpretation is sufficiently contradicted 
by ver. 20. 

2 The interpretation of Wichelhaus — who 
by circumlocution explains τὰ ἐν φυλ. πνεύματα 
as equal to οἱ ἀπειθοῦντες τηρούμενοι, φρουρού- 
μενοι εἰς ἡμέραν τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ —is alto- 
gether erroneous, 

$3 Justin (Dial c. Tryph., 6. 5): tas μὲν τῶν 


εὐσεβῶν (ψυχὰς) ἐν κρείττονί Tov χώρῳ μένειν, 
τὰς δ᾽ ἀδίκους καὶ πονηροὺς ἐν χείρονι τὸν τῆς 
κρίσεως ἐνδεχομένας χρόνον. 

4 Luthardt so thoroughly recognizes the 
vis of this πορευθείς, that he says he should 
interpret the passage as Hofmann does, if the 
πορευθείς did not prevent him from doing so. 
Besides, it is certain that the coming of the 
Holy Spirit is at the same time a coming of 
Christ; but it must not be overlooked that in 
the N. T. it is nowhere indicated as being a 
coming of Christ ἐν πνεύματι. 


CHAP. III. 20 297 


either the contents or the purpose of that preaching; but since Christ is 
called the κῆρυξας without the addition of any more precise qualification, 
it must be concluded that the contents and design of this κήρυγμα are in 
harmony with the κῆρυγμα of Christ elsewhere. It is accordingly arbitrary, 
and in contradiction to Christ’s significance for the work of redemption, 
to assume that this preaching consisted in the proclamation of the coming 
judgment (Flacius, Calov., Buddeus, Hollaz, Wolf, Aretius, Zezschwitz, 
Schott, etc.), and was a praedicatio damnatoria.1 Wiesinger justly asks: 
“This concio damnatoria — what does it mean in general, what here espe- 
cially?” —It is unjustifiable to deny, with some commentators; that the 
apostle regarded this πορευθεὶς ἐκῆρυξε as an actual reality.2—xai, following 
ἐν ᾧ, must not be explained, as Schweizer does, in this way, that Peter, 
wishing to hold up Christ to his readers as a pattern of how they should 
παι themselves under suffering, adduces two examples, vv. 19 ff., His 
death on the cross, and His preaching: the whole structure of the clauses, 
as well as their contents, contradicts this. Nor can it be explained, as 
Hofmann assumes, “from the antithesis between us whom Christ wished 
to bring to God, and those who as spirits are in durance.” This would 
hold good only if, in ver. 18, it were affirmed that Christ did the same to us 
as to those spirits, that is, preached to us. It is likewise incorrect to take 
kai as equivalent to “even” (Wiesinger, Fronmiller); for a distinction 
between these spirits and others is nowhere hinted at. καὶ is put rather in 
order to show prominently that what is said in this verse coincides with the 
ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι of ver. 18. Zezschwitz: ut notio, quae in enunciatione ἐν ᾧ 
latet (ζωοπ. πνεύματι) urgeatur. 

Ver. 20. The words which begin this verse, ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε, characterize 
the spirits who are in prison according to their former conduct. The parti- 
ciple must not, with Wiesinger, be resolved into “although, notwithstand- 
ing the fact that they had been disobedient; ” an adversative relation of this 


1 Hollaz: ‘ Fuit praedicatio Christi in in- 3 Thus Picus-Mirandola says: ‘ Christus 


ferno non evangelica, quae hominibus tantum 
in regno gratiae annunciatur, sed Jdegalis 
elenchthica, terribilis eaque tum verbalis, qua 
ipsos aeterna supplicia promeritos esse con- 
vincit, tum realis, qua immanem terrorem iis 
incussit.” This interpretation, which has its 
origin in dogmatic views, Zezschwitz seeks to 
found on exegesis by characterizing the idea 
of judgment as the leading conception of the 
whole passage, to which, however, the context 
gives no warrant, and also by maintaining that 
otherwise Peter would have used the word 
εὐαγγελίζειν, Or a compound of ἀγγέλλειν. It 
is certainly correct when Schott and Kéhler 
say that κηρύσσειν is not in itself equal to 
εὐαγγελίζειν; but it does not follow that it 
may not be applied to a message of salvation. 
It must be remembered that Christ’s aim, even 
as a preacher of judgment, ever was the ac- 
complishment of salvation, as he Aeclared Luke 
ix. 10; John xii. 47. 


non veraciter et quantum ad realem praesen- 
tiam descendit ad inferos, sed solum quoad 
effectum.”’ Cf., too, J. R. Lavater, De Descensu 
Christi ad Inf., lib. I., ¢. 9. — Many interpret- 
ers unwarrantably weaken at least ἐκήρυξε, in 
so far as to make it synonymous with “ showed 
Himself,” or, at any rate, they say that the 
preaching of Christ was potius realiter, quam 
verbaliter. This the author of the article, 
‘‘Die Hoéllenfahrt Christi,” in the Erlanger 
Zeitschrift fiir Protest., 1856, should not have 
sanctioned. Schott is not free from this arbi- 
trary method of interpretation, in that he char- 
acterizes κηρύσσειν “‘as a bearing witness to 
one’s self, not only in word, but also in deed,” 
and calls ‘this bearing witness to and show- 
ing forth of Himself by Christ in the glory 
of His mediatorial person,” a concio damna- 
toria. 


208 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


kind must have been more plainly expressed 1— According to the uniform 
usage of the N. T., the word ἀπειθεῖν has here also the meaning of unbelief 
involving resistance; cf. chap. ii. 7, 8, ili. 1, iv. 17. The translation: “to 
be disobedient,” is too inexact, for the word forms the antithesis to πιστεύειν, 
— ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο, k.7.4., Serves not only to specify the time when these spirits 
were unbelieving, but also to mark the guilt of the ἀπειθεῖν. ---- ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, 
according to N. T. usage, equivalent to “patient waiting,” is here used abso- 
lutely, as in Rom. viii. 25 (comp. ἐκδέχεσθαι, Heb. x. 19; thus Schott also). 
The narrative itself shows the object to which this waiting of God’s long- 
suffering was directed. Its duration is not to be limited to the seven days 
mentioned in Gen. vii. 4 (De Wette), for this is in keeping neither with the 
ἀπεξεδέχετο  . . . μακροθυμία, nor the subsequent κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ, but 
embraces the whole period of one hundred and twenty years mentioned in 
Gen. vi. 3. — The time specified by ὅτε, «.7.4., is still more precisely defined 
in the subsequent ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε and the κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ; in such a 
way, however, that these adjuncts contain a reference to the exhortation to 
repentance then given, for Noah was not, like the others, an unbeliever, but 
a believer, and the preparation of the ark gave unmistakable testimony to 
the approaching judgment. —“«:@wré¢ without the article, the expression 
used by the LXX. for 12, equal to ark, arca; comp. Matt. xxiv. 38; Luke 
xvil. 27; Heb. xi. 7” (Wiesinger). 


REMARK 1.—Some of the interpreters who do not apply this passage to 
the descensus ad inferos, as Luther (in his Auslegung der Ep. Petri, 1525 (the 
Socinians, Vorstius, Amelius, Grotius, etc., explain ἐκήρυξε as referring to 
the preaching of the apostles, assuming that the unbelievers in the time of 
Noah are mentioned only as types of the unbelievers in apostolic times. τὰ ἐν 
φυλακῇ πνεύματα they understand to mean the heathen alone, or those along with 
the Jews. Amelius: πνεύμ. hic in genere denotant homines, quemadmodum 
paulo post ψυχαί: ἐν φυλακῇ: in captivitate erant tum Judaei, sub jugo legis 
existentes, tum quoque gentiles, sub potestate diaboli jacentes. Illos omnes 
Christus liberavit ; praedicationem verbi sui ad ipsos mittens et continuans et 
Apostolos divina virtute instruens. 

REMARK 2. — Even interpreters who apply this passage to the descensus ad 
inferos, and understand ἐκήρυξε of the preaching of salvation,? are guilty of much 
arbitrariness, and especially in designating more precisely those to whom the 
preaching is addressed. Several of the Fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippo- 
lytus ; many of the Scholastics ; further, Zwingli, Calvin (in his Comment.), 


1 Hofman has now justly given up his 
former explanation: ‘‘ without being obe- 
dient.”” Walther’s interpretation is evidently 
entirely arbitrary: “to the spirits, i.e., the 
devils and the damned in general, particularly 
to those damned who,” ete. But neither is 
there a warrant for inserting οἷον (Bengel: 
*‘subaudi οἷον, i.e., exempli gratia, in diebus 
Noe; subjicitur generi species maxime insig- 
nis’’). 

2 Tt must further be remarked, that several 


commentators, Athanasius, Ambrosius, Eras- 
mus, Calvin (in his Jnstit., lib. 11., 2, 6. 16, § 9), 
understand Christ’s preaching as at once a 
praedicatio salvifica and praed. damnatoria. 
Calvin, however, does hold by the idea of 
κηρύσσειν, when he says: ‘*Contextus vim 
mortis (Christi) inde amplificat, quod ad mor- 
tuos usque penetraverit, dum piae animae ejus 
visitationis, quam _ sollicite exspectaverant, 
praesenti aspectu sunt potitae; contra reprobis 
clarius patuit, se excludi ab omni salute.” 


CHAP. III. 20. 299 


and others hold those to have been the pious, especially the pious of the O. T.1 
—Marcion thinks the κήρυγμα was addressed to those who, though in the 
Ο. T. termed ungodly, were actually better than the O. T. believers. — Clemens 
Al. supposes the δίκαιοι κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν, who, however, were still without faith 
and in the trammels of idolatry. —Several commentators assume that not all 
unbelievers in the days of Noah are meant, but those only who, at first indeed 
unbelieving, had still repented at the last moment when the flood came upon 
them ; this is the view of Suarez, Estius, Bellarmin, Luther (Zu der Erklérung 
der Genesis, 1536, und zu Hosea IV. 2, v. J. 1545),? Peter Martyr, ete. Bengel 
says: Probabile est, nonnullos ex tanta multitudine, veniente pluvia, resipuisse ; 
cumque non credidissent, dum expectaret Deus, postea, cum... poena ingrue- 
ret, credere coepisse, quibus postea Christus eorumque similibus se praeconem 
gratiae praestiterit. Wiesinger agrees with this interpretation, at least in so 
far that he assumes that the moral condition of the individual (at the time of 
the flood) was not in every case the same, but extremely varied ; although, 
on the other hand, he finds fault with it on the ground ‘“‘ that, in contradiction 
to the context, it limits the ἐκήρυξε only to a part.’? Schott remarks, as against 
Wiesinger, ‘‘ that although some may in respect of moral condition have differed 
from the majority, or still have repented in the last moment, yet these were not 
among the spirits in durance who listened to Christ’s preaching.”’ 

REMARK 8. — The view commonly accepted is that this preaching by Christ 
took place before His resurrection, whilst His body lay in the grave. Many 
even of the older dogmatists of the Lutheran Church, however, hold it to have 
been accomplished after His quickening, that is, in the time between this and 
His going forth from the grave. Quenstedt says: Christus θεάνθρωπος totaque 
adeo persona (non igitur secundum animam tantum nec secundum corpus tan- 
tum) post redunitionem animae ac corporis ad istud damnatorum που descendit ; 
he fixes the time when this happened : illud momentum, quod intercessit inter 
ζωοποίησιν et ἀνάστασιν Christi stricte ita dictam. Hollaz: distinguendum inter 
resurrectionem externam et internam; illa est egressio e sepulcro et exterior 
coram hominibus manifestatio ; haec est ipsa vivificatio; so, too, Hutter, Baier, 
Buddeus, ete. In like manner, Schott: ‘‘In the new spiritual life which in 
that mysterious hour of midnight He had put on, and before appearing with it 
on the upper world by His resurrection, He descended.’* — The verse does not 
indeed say that the ἐκήρυξε belongs to this very moment, but it does certainly 
point to the preaching having taken place after Christ’s restoration to life, as 
De Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, Zezschwitz, have rightly acknowledged ; for 
referring as ἐν ᾧ does to the πνεύματι connected with ζωοποιηθείς, it is arbitrary to 
find in πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξε mention made of an act of Christ which took place after 
the θανατωθείς indeed, but yet betore the ζωοποιηθείς, As, then, both expressions 
apply to Christ in His entire person, consisting of body and soul, what follows 


1 Calvin’s exposition is singular: he inter- titudine paene obruti fuerunt. Exemplum 


prets φυλακή as equal to specula vel ipse excu- 
bandi actus ; τὸ ἐν φυλ. mv. equals * the spirits 
of those who were on the watch-tower,”’ i.e., 
in the expectation of salvation, or also in 
ancxietas expectationis Christi, aud then con- 
tinues: ‘‘Postquam (Ap.) dixit, Christi se 
mortuis manifestasse, mox addit: quum in- 
ereduli fuissent olim, quo significat nihil 
nocuisse sanctis Patribus quod impiorum mul- 


vero ex tota vetustate prae aliis illustre deligit, 
nempe cum diluvio submersus fuit mundus.” 
He removes the scruple, that the dative ἀπει- 
θήσασι is not in harmony with this explana- 
tion, by observing that the apostles sometimes 
employ one case in room of another. 

2 On Luther’s vacillation in interpreting this 
passage, see Kéhler as above, and Schweizer 
as above, p. 7. 


900 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


must not be conceived as an activity which He exercised in His spirit only 
and whilst separated from His body. In addition to this, if according to His 
intention His preaching was to be indeed a preaching of salvation, it must have 
had for its substance the work of redemption, completed only in the resurrec- 
tion. Weiss (p. 232) objects that πνεῦμα is not equal to σῶμα πνευματικόν, and 
this is undoubtedly true; but it cannot prove any thing against the view that 
Christ as the Risen One, that is, in His glorified body, preached to the spirits in 
prison, inasmuch as in this body the Lord is no longer év capxi, but entirely év 
πνεύματι. ---- Thus the passage says nothing as to Christ’s existence between His 
death and resurrection. If Acts ii. 31 presuppose the going of the dead Christ 
into Hades, the common dwelling-place of departed souls, this descensus ad 
inferos must not be identified with the one here mentioned, as also Wiesinger, 
Briickner, and Schott rightly observe ; so that by drawing this distinction the 
disputed question, too, whether Christ descended into Hades, guoad anima, or 
quoad animam et corpus, finds its correct solution. It must further be added, 
that this passage gives no support whatever either to the doctrine of the Form. 
concordiae, that in Hades Christ ‘‘overcame the devil, destroyed the power of 
hell, and despoiled the devil of his might,’’ or to that of the Catholic Church 
of the limbus Patrum and purgatory. 


Connected with the words κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ are the thoughts which 
follow, in which stress is laid not so much on the judgment which overtook 
unbelievers in the flood, as on the deliverance of the few: εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι. ---- διεσώ- 
θησαν dt ὕδατος]. The preposition διά is to be explained not as equal to ἐκ 
(Acts xxvill. 4: ὃν διασωθέντα ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης), nor as if it were ἐν (in medio 
aquarum), nor equivalent to non obstante aqua (Gerhard), nor even as a prepo- 
sition of time (60 tempore, quo aquae inundaverant) ; but is to be taken either 
locally or instrumentally. 6’ ὕδατος is then either “through the water,” or 
equivalent to “by means of water.” The former view (Bengel, Steiger, De 
Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, formerly Hofmann also) seems to be confirmed 
by the verbum compos. διεσώθησαν. But διασώζειν, both in the LXX. and in 
the N. T. (cf. Matt. xiv. 36; Luke vii. 3, ete.), is often used as a strength- 
ened form of σώζειν, without the peculiar force of διά being pressed. And 
thus it must be taken here, inasmuch as it contradicts the historical narra- 
tive in Genesis, to say that Noah and his family were saved by passing 
through the water. διά has accordingly here an instrumental force, so that 
δι’ ὕδατος indicates water as the medium through which the Noahites were 
delivered. And this interpretation is alone in harmony with the context, 
inasmuch as the apostle in what follows gives special prominence to the fact 
that the N. T. deliverance is likewise effected by means of water. If water 
was the means of deliverance to Noah and those with him, “in so far as it — 
bore those hidden within the ark, and thus preserved them from destruction, 
comp. Gen. vii. 17, 18” (Weiss, p. 513; thus also Wolf, Pott, Jachmann, 
Schott), this implies recourse to a pregnant construction, inasmuch as the 


1 Wiesinger has expressed himself in favor bines both interpretations: ‘‘In which few 
of the first version, but then remarks: ‘‘ The souls sought shelter, and were saved through 
writer conceives the water at the same time as the water and by it;” this is evidently alto- 
the saving element.’ Fronmiiller, too, com- gether unwarrantable. 


CHAP. III. 21. 901 


apostle unites the two thoughts in one: “they were saved hy going into the 
ark,” and “they were saved δι᾽ ὕδατος." Hofmann seeks to avoid the assump- 
tion of a pregnancy by explaining idwp here as the water “which began to 
overflow the earth,” and which compelled Noah to enter with those belong- 
ing to him into the ark, in support of which he appeals to Gen. vii. 11, 13. 
But although these passages state that both the entering into the ark and 
the beginning of the deluge took place on the same day, still the latter event 
is not indicated as the motive of the former. According to the narrative in 
Genesis, it was the command of God which moved the Noahites to enter the 
ark, and as soon as they had done so, aud God had closed the ark, the deluge 
commenced; οἵ. Gen. vii. 1, 16, 17. — Further, on Hofmann’s interpretation 
water can be regarded only in a very loose sense as the medium of deliver- 
ance; nor would it be in keeping with the subsequent parallelism. It must 
be noted that ὕδατος is anarthrous, and although by the term no other water 
can be understood than that of the flood, yet Peter’s object here is not to 
show that the same water which destroyed some served as the means of de- 
liverance for others, but merely to state that the deliverance of Noah and 
those with him was effected by water, in order that this water then may be 
recognized as the type of the saving water of baptism (comp. Schott). — 
ὀλίγοι, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί]. τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, x.7.A,, justifies the use of the expres- 
sion ὀλίγοι; so much stress is laid on this particular, very probably in order 
to point out, on the one hand, the great number of those who perished, and 
on the other, the proporticn to be looked for at the final judgment. 

Ver. 21. ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς (ἡμᾶς) ἀντίτυπον viv σώζει βαπτισμα]. 6 does not apply to 
the thought expressed in the previous verse, as Gerhard, who adopts the 
reading ᾧ, explains: isti conservationi tanquam typo spiritualis conservationis 
baptismus velut ἀντίτυπον respondet (in like manner Beza, Hornejus, Morus, 
Hottinger, Hensler, ete.), but it refers back to ὕδατος, and, withal, so that by 
it water generally is to be understood, and not that particular water through 
the medium of which the Noahites were saved; water saved them, and it is 
water by which you too are saved. The general term receives a more pre- 
cise definition in the adjectival ὀντίτυπον, by means of which the water which 
now saves is contrasted as antitype} with the water which saved Noah and 
those with him. What this antitypical water is, is stated by the subjoined 
βάπτισμα, Which as an apposition must be explained in the sense: “as bap- 
tism” (comp. Winer, p. 491 [E. T., 528]). Differently, Hofmann; he wouid 
take the apposition in the sense of “a baptism namely;” he says, “in the 
explanatory apposition the apostle substitutes the term ‘baptism’ for ‘water,’ 
without, by the anarthrous βάπτισμα, directly indicating Christian baptism. 
What kind of baptism he means is stated by the apposition, subjoined to 
βάπτισμα." On this it must be remarked, that βάπτισμα would certainly con- 
vey to the readers only the idea of a definite Christian baptism, and that the 
apposition following is not fitted to mark the term baptism, indefinite in 
itself, as the specifically Christian baptism, but only to point out in what 
way baptism possesses in itself the saving power attributed to it. — Without 


2 Raphelius: “ τύπος res aliud quid prae- ἀντίτυπος has another meaning in Heb, ii. 24, 
figurans, ἀντίτυπος res illa praefigurata.”’ where the τύπος is the ἀληθινόν. 
> 


8902 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

any cogent reason, Steiger interprets βάπτισμα as equivalent to “baptismal 
water.” The direct conjunction which takes place here ceases to occasion 
surprise, if it be considered that the typical character of the deluge, as re- 
gards baptism, consists not only in the sameness of the elements, but in the 
similarity of the relation of the water to those saved. If δι' ὕδατος be rendered 
“through the water,” an incongruity will arise, disturbing to the parallelism, 
and which attempts have been made to overcome by supplying intermediate 
ideas. According to De Wette, the antitypical character of baptism consists 
in this: “that in it the flesh must perish and, as it were, be judged; whilst, at 
the same time, through faith in the resurrection of Christ, pure spiritual life 
is attained, and the believer saved.” By these and such like supplements, 
which the apostle himself in no way suggests, elements are introduced 
foreign to his conception.1— The present σώζει is put here neither instead 
of the preterite nor the future; it denotes rather the effect which, from the 
moment of its accomplishment, baptism produces on the persons who submit 
to it. The latter resemble the Noahites whilst by means of water they were 
being preserved in the ark from destruction (ἀπώλειω). ---- The antithesis which 
exists between ὑμᾶς and the preceding ὀλίγοι, indicates that the proportion 
saved by baptism to the unbelieving is but small. ὀλίγοι has accordingly a 
typical significance. It is more doubtful whether the same is the case with 
the ark; Oecumenius already saw in it the Church, whilst others regard it 
as a symbol of Jesus Christ.2 — οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, ἀλλά]. Apposition to 
βάπτισμα, which, however, does not state the nature of baptism generally, but 
only in what sense it effects σώζειν. This is stated first negatively, in order 
thereby to mark more distinctly the standpoint. Almost all commentators 
take σαρκές as a genitive depending on ῥύπου, and preceding it only for the 
sake of emphasis. Bengel, on the other hand, joins it—as genit. subj. — 
directly with ἀπόθεσις : “carni adscribitur depositio sordium ; ideo non dicitur: 
depositio sordium carnis.” The sense would then be: baptism does not con- 
sist in this, “that the flesh lays aside its uncleanness.” This explanation, 
corresponding as it does to the position of the words, is well suited to the 
idea ἀπόθεσις, which does not necessarily presuppose the activity of the sub- 
ject, but can be used when the subject is, strictly speaking, passive; comp, 
2 Pet. i. 14, the ouly other passage in which the word occurs in the N. T. 
Hofmann is accordingly mistaken in asserting that “the laying aside of 
uncleanness cannot be regarded as an act of the flesh.” — An antithetical 
allusion to the Jewish washings can hardly be here assumed (cf. Justin M., 
Dial. c. Tryph., p. 831: τί γὰρ ὄφελος ἐκείνου τοῦ βαπτίσματος (the Jewish wash- 


destroyed mankind from the earth, so that 
from out of it only a small number, belonging 


1 Schott, indeed, justly remarks “that the 
antitypical nature of baptism, and therefore 


the typical nature of that to which baptism 
corresponds as antitype, consists precisely in 
what is asserted of both, namely, in their 
saving power and effect.”” He thinks, how- 
ever, ‘‘ that the antitypical nature of the water 
applies to what was essentially peculiar to the 
great flood.”” What this is he explains by 
saying that ‘‘the flood was a judgment which 


to the church of believers, were saved;”’ that 
is, ‘it was a judgment of extirpation in such 
a way that it was the means of effecting a 
salvation.” 

2 Thus Hemming: ‘‘Quemadmodum aqua 
per se non salvavit Noe, sed mediante arca, 
ita aqua baptismi per se non salvat, sed medi- 
ante areca, ἢ. 6. Christo Jesu.”’ 


CHAP. III. 21. 303 


ing), ὃ τὴν σάρκα καὶ μόνον τὸ σῶμα φαιδρύνει ; βαπτίσθητε τὴν ψυχήν). — ἀλλὰ συνει- 
δῇσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεόν]. The positive, as contrasted with the negative 
character of baptism. συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς can be either the subjective or the 
objective gen.? ἐπερώτημα, a ἅπ. Aey. in the N. T. (in the O. T. only once, 
LXX., Dan. iv. 14, as a translation of NDONW), is used in classical Greek 
only in the sense of “question.” Holding by this meaning, commentators 
have explained it as (1) the question concerning a good conscience addressed 
to God” (thus Wiesinger, who, however, prefers the translation “imqury” 
to “question ἢ), or (2) “the question of a good conscience directed to God” 
(Gerhard, Steiger, Besser). The first of these renderings is not in har- 
mony with the nature of baptism, inasmuch as the person to be baptized 
already knows how the good conscience is to be obtained. From the second 
there results only an incomplete idea, necessitating arbitrary supplements .? 
Now, as ἐπερωτᾷν, which doubtless means only “to ask a question,” 1s used also 
of such questions as would obtain something from the person asked (Matt. 
xvi. 1; Ps. exxxvii. 3, LXX.), the meaning has been assigned to ἐπερώτημα: 
“the inquiring desire,” “the inquiring request.” Some commentators here take 
συν. dy. a8 a subj. gen., and interpret: “the request of a good conscience ad- 
dressed to God” (thus Bengel, with whom Schmid, Bibl. Theol. des N. T., 
p- 199, agrees: salvat nos rogatio bonae conscientiae, i.e., rogatio, qua nos Deum 
compellamus cum bona conscientia, peccatis remissis et deposiis) ;* but this also 
gives rise to an incomplete idea, inasmuch as the contents of the request are 
not stated. On this rendering of ἐπερώτημα, it is better to regard the gen. as 
an object. gen., thus: “the request addressed to God for a good conscience :” 
Lutz, Lechler, Weiss, Weizsicker (Reuter’s Repert., 1858, H. 3), Hofmann, 
Schott; Wiesinger, too, is inclined to agree. But to this also objections 


1 Augustin’s opinion (Contr. Faust., c. 12 
et 13), with which Beda and others agree, is 
quite inappropriate. It is, that the apostle 
here alludes to the baptism of the heretics. 
Calvin’s assertion, too, that this negative ap- 
position emphasizes the fact that baptism, as 
an outward form, is of no use, introduces a 
foreign idea into the words of the apostle. 

2 This is denied, indeed, by several com- 
mentators, specially by Hofmann and Schott, 
because a good conscience does not precede, 
but is the fruit of, baptism. But this assertion 
presupposes the identification of the good con- 
science with that conscience which by Christ 
is reconciled with God, and is released from 
the feeling of guilt. For this, however, the 
N. T. phraseology gives no warrant. Accord- 
ing to it, συνείδησις ἀγαθή rather means ‘the 
consciousness of pure intentions,” or ‘‘ the con- 
sciousness of sincerely willing that which is 
good”’ (Heb. xiii. 18, καλὴν συνειδησιν ἔχομεν; 
ἐν πᾶσι καλῶς θέλοντες ἀναστρέφεσθαι; cf. also 
1 Pet. iii. 16; Acts xxiii. 1; 1 Tim. i. 5, 19, fii. 
9). If baptism is really to bring a blessing to 
the person baptized, he must surely desire it 
with a good conscience, 


8 Gerhard: ‘‘Quomodo deus erga baptiza. 
tum affectus sit,” etc.; Steiger: ‘‘For the 
salvation of which he who receives baptism 
would be assured;” Besser: ‘* Art thou not 
my father? Am I not thy child?” The in 
terpretation given in the Zrlanger Zeitschrift, 
1856, p. 298 ff., is evidently altogether erro- 
neous: **The proof of the good conscience 
attained in baptism 1s the ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θ., 
i.e., the question, Am I not saved by my bap- 
tism from the judgment on an unbelieving 
world?” Apart from all else, the matter here 
treated of is not a question which is only put 
after baptism, since baptism itself is designated 
as the ἐπερώτημα. 

4 To this interpretation of Bengel, Hof- 
mann rightly objects ‘ that ἐπερώτημα cannot 
well mean something which presupposes the 
reception of baptism;” but if the ‘ peccatis 
remissis et depositis’’ be not looked upon as 
belonging to the idea of a good conscience, 
Hofmann’s objection loses its validity. 

5 The same view is to be found already in 
Seb. Schmidius, only that he regards é7ep. as 
meaning the petitio addressed to God by him 
who baptizes, and συν. a). as the gift which 


804 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


which cannot be overlooked arise: (1) Although the reception of baptism 
be founded on the desire for a reconciled conscience, yet it does not follow 
that baptism itself can be described as the expression of this desire; (2) 
Taken thus, the proper meaning of ἐπερώτημα is entirely lost sight of; the 
word is used in a sense in which it occurs nowhere else,—a proceeding 
which is all the more open to question, that the apostle had certainly other 
words at his command wherewith to give the idea of request; (3) The object 
which the recipient of baptism requests, namely, “the reconciled conscience,” 
is inadequately expressed by συνείδησις ἀγαθῆ, for here no stress is laid on the 
essential element, — the forgiveness of sin; lastly, (4) In this interpretation 
εἰς Θεόν is only of secondary importance, whilst the passages, chap. i. 21 and 
111. 18, show that the chief emphasis lies on εἰς Oeov.1— Even from early 
times interpreters have attempted to explain ἐπερώτημα in this passage, not 
according to common but according to juristic usage, taking it as equal to 
σύμφωνον, stipulatio mutua, contract (Luther: “covenant”), referring at the 
same time to the act of question and answer, which took place at baptism: 
ἀποτάσσῃ τῷ Σατανᾶ; ἀποτάσσομαι " συντάσσῃ TH Χριστῷ; συντάσσομαι" abrenuntias ? 
abrenuntio ; credis? credo (Tertull., Lib. de Resurr. Carn.: anima non lavatione, 
sed responsione sancilur). Aretius interprets: Deus in baptismo nobis promittit, 
quod velit nos filiorum loco habere propter Christum ; contra nos promitlimus, nos 
serio victuros pie; haec est mutua stipulatio; this interpretation, however, is 
erroneous, as even in legal phraseology ἐπερώτημα does not mean a “recip- 
rocal” contract. De Wette’s is likewise wrong: “by metonymy, because 
questions were addressed to the individual who took the vow, ἐπερωτᾶσθαι 
acquired the meaning promittere, spondere, and ἐπερώτημα that of sponsio;” 
for ἐπερώτημα is not derived from ἐπερωτᾶσθαι, but from ἑπερωτᾷν, and therefore 
never had or could have had the signification, “solemn pledge.” Further, 
it has been not unjustly remarked, in opposition to this view, according to 
which συν. dy. is considered as an object. gen., that it would have been better 
to have spoken of ἀναστροφὴ ἀγαθῇ as that which has to be vowed.? Briickner 
has substantially corrected De Wette by pointing out that in the language 
of the Byzantine lawyers ἐπερωτᾷν is used in the sense, “to conclude a treaty, 
a contract, stipulari,” taking συν. dy, as a subject. gen. But his exposition 
suffers from an uncertain wavering, for he too declares ἐπερώτημα to be 
synonymous with “treaty,” indeed with “vow,” which is certainly not the 
case. The facts are these: a contract was concluded in the form of ques- 


he implores for the person baptized; evidently 
this is entirely arbitrary. 

1 Hofmann, in support of the interpretation 
here called in question, appeals to the circum- 
stance, ‘‘that the petition for the cleansing of 
the conscience from past sins forms the only 
suitable antithesis to the putting away of filth 
contracted outwardly.’? But it must be re- 
marked in opposition, that, however suitable 
this antithesis may appear in itself, it does not 
follow that the apostle had it in his mind in 
the way here stated. It is rather improbable 
that he had, since in this positive nearer detini- 


tion of baptism its application to cleansing is 
in no way alluded to. — The explanation given 
in Weissagung und L£rfiillung, Il. p. 234, 
“the happiness of a good conscience asked of 
God,” he passes over in silence in his Schrift- 
beweis, II]. 2.— The interpretation given by 
Winer in the 5th ed. of his Gr.; ‘* The inquiry 
of a good conscience after God, i.e., the turn- 
ing to God, the seeking Him,” does not occur 
in the subsequent editions, nor is there any 
justification for it. 

2 Estius, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Pott, Hens- 
ler, etc., interpret similarly to De Wette. 


CHAP. III. 22. 305 
tion and answer: spondesne? spondeo (comp. Puchta, Curs. der Institut., v. 3, 
p- 97); by the question, on the one side, the agreement was proposed; by 
the reply, on the other, it was concluded. ἐπερώτημα is, then, this question by 
which the conclusion of a contract began, not then the contract itself, and 
still less the pledge which was taken rather by him who replied. The ques- 
tioner bound himself by his question to accept that which he who gave the 
reply promised. If, then, the designation of baptism as συνειδήσεως ay. ἐπερώ- 
tua εἰς Θεὸν is to be explained from legal procedure, it can only be spoken of 
as such, inasmuch as the person baptized, by the reception of baptism, enters 
into a relation —as it were, of contract — with God, in which he submits in 
faith to God's promise of salvation. Nor can it be denied that this is really 
in harmony with the nature of baptism, more especially if it be considered 
that in the legal proceedings, connected with the conclusion of a contract, 
the respondent pronounced his spendeo in the expectation that the interro- 
gator would fulfil the conditions previously stipulated, to which he had 
pledged himself. This explains the expression συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς, which 
points to the circumstance that the recipient of baptism, in submitting to it, 
has the honest purpose faithfully to fulfil the conditions under which the 
divine assent is given. This interpretation is distinguished. from those 
above mentioned by its concrete precision. No doubt ἐπερώτημα in this 
juristic sense is to be found only in writings of a later date; but since 
this form of concluding a contract belonged to an earlier time, it may be 
assumed that the word had previously been in use thus in legal phraseology.! 
The adjunct: δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως ᾿Ιησοὺ Χριστοῶ, by referring back to ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ 
πνεύματι, brings the apostle again to his former train of thought. The words 
are not appended in a loose way to ἐπερώτημα for the purpose of stating how 
this is effected, as Grotius, Pott, Hensler, Zezschwitz, Hofmann, Schott, and 
others assume; they are rather conjoined with the verb of the clause σώζει, 
inasmuch as they state that through which the βάπτισμα exercises its saving 
effect (De Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss). The former construction is the less 
justifiable, that it is more natural to unite the concluding adjunct with the 
leading idea than with the secondary thought which specifies the nature of 
baptism. It is still less appropriate to connect the words directly with συνει- 
δήσεως ay. (aS against Fronmiiller). 

Ver. 22. ὃς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοὺ Θεοῦ]. This brings to a close the whole train 
of thought with reference to Christ, from ver. 18 and onwards, inasmuch as 
to His sufferings, death, resurrection, and going to the spirits in prison, there 


1 After the explanation here given, it is evi- 
dently incorrect when Hofmann says that 
“ ἐπερώτημα could only be the question ad- 
dressed by him who closes an agreement, to 
the person who is to consent toit.’’ The very 
opposite is the case. The question is not ad- 
dressed from the former to the latter, but from 
the latter to the former; that is, then, not 
from God to the person baptized, but from 
the person baptized to God. 

21 Kings xxii. 7: ἔτι els ἔστιν ἀνὴρ εἰς τὸ 


ἐπερωτῆσαι δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν κύριον, has been ap- 
pealed to in favor of this construction; erro- 
neously, since δι᾿ αὐτοῦ applies to a person. 
Between it, therefore, and δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως no 
parallel can be drawn. — According to Hof- 
mann, διά states that which the person bap- 
tized appeals to in support of his desire for 
the remission of sin. The passages, however, 
which he quotes (1 Cor. i. 10 and Rom. xii. 1) 
by no means prove that the prep. διά has this 
signification. 


806 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


is now added, His sitting down at the right hand of God. This expression, 
which points out the present condition of the glorified Redeemer, occurs 
likewise in Rom. viii. 34, Col. viii. 1, and in other passages of the N. T. — 
πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν corresponds to πορευθείς, ver. 19.— ὑποταγέντων. . . δυνάμεων, 
added in order to give prominence to the unlimited sway of Christ (Eph. i. 
21, 22; Col. ii. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 27; Heb. ii. 8), extending even over all 
heavenly powers, whatever their name or office. — The expressions ἐξουσίαι 
and δυνάμεις are — with the exception of this passage — used only by Paul as 
names of angels (with δυνάμεις, cf. Ps. ciii. 21, clxviii. 2, LX-X.); and in the 
same sequence. ἄγγελοι is not here the general term to which ἐξουσίαι and 
δυνάμεις (kal... καί equivalent to cum . . . tum) are subordinate, but the 
three conceptions are co-ordinate, and connected by the repeated copula. 
This is shown by Rom. viii. 38, where, instead of ἐξουσίαι, the name dpyai is 
used. For the various names, comp. Meyer on Eph. i. 21; Col. i. 16.— 
ὑποταγ. expresses, not enforced, but voluntary subjection. 

With regard to the relation of this whole passage to what precedes, ὅτι καὶ 
Χριστὸς... ἔπαθεν shows that in the first instance confirmation is given to 
the thought that it is better to suffer for well than for evil doing, by refer- 
ence to the sufferings of Christ, similarly as is done in chap. 11. 21. But as 
the last-mentioned passage passes beyond the limits of the typical, — that 
is, first by the addition of ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to ἔπαθεν, and then by the statements 
of ver. 24,—the same takes place here. There, reference is made to the 
redeeming death of the abased Christ; here, to the living work of the glori- 
fied Christ. The chief separate points have already been stated. The 
allusion of baptism appears indeed to be a digression, yet it belongs essen- 
tially to the train of thought; for fater that mention had been made of 
Christ’s work among the spirits in prison in His exalted condition, it was 
necessary to call attention likewise to His redeeming work on earth, the 
effects of which are communicated through baptism. That Peter speaks of 
this medium (not that of the word, etc.), is explained by his reference to the 
deluge as the type of the approaching judgment, and to the water by which 
Noah and those with him were saved, and which appeared as a τύπος of 
baptism.? 


1 Since that which is stated in this para- | mann’s assertion to the contrary, be described 
graph does not keep within the limits of the as a digression. 
typical, it may very well, in spite of Hof- 


CHAP. IV. 807 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 1. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν]. Rec. after A, K, L, P, δὲ (corr.; after m. pr., ἀποθανόντος 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν), al., is wanting in B, C, several min., Sahid, Vulg., Aug., Fulgent., 
etc.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Perhaps it is inserted in order to complete 
the idea ; Reiche considers ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν to be the original reading ; so, too, Hofm. 
The Rec. has ἐν σαρκί before πέπαυται, after K, several min., etc. In A, B,C, L, 
N, ete., etc., the preposition is wanting. Even Griesb. recommends its omis- 
sion; Lachm. and Tisch. omit ἐν, Buttm. has retained ἐν, as, according to his 
statement, it occurs in B. Wiesinger inclines to explain the reading σαρκί from 
what precedes ; Reiche, on the other hand, explains ἐν σαρκί from what follows. 
The authorities, as well as the idea itself, decide for the omission of év. — 
Ver. 3. ἡμῖν]. Rec. after C, K, L, P, al., Oec., Hier., can hardly be genuine ; it 
is wanting in A, B, al., Syr., utr.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Steiger’s 
remark, that ‘‘it is pleasing to us to observe how the apostle does not think 
higher of his own former conduct than of that of the others,’’ does not prove 
the genuineness of ἡμῖν. The reading ὑμῖν, too, in 8 and several min., must be 
regarded as a correction; it lay to hand to insert a dative in order to complete 
the sentence. — Following K, L, P, several min., ete., the Rec. has τοῦ 3:ov after 
χρόνος, which is wanting in A, B, Ὁ, &, ete., etc. Tittmann brackets it, Lachm. 
and Tisch. rightly omit it. — BovAnjua]. After A, B, Ὁ, δὲ, ete. Clem., Theoph. 
(Lachm., Tisch.), instead of the Rec. θέλημα, which occurs only in K, L, P, 
several min., Oec. — The aorist κατεργάσασθαι is attested only by K, L, P, Oec.; 
it is accordingly better to read the perfect with Lachm. and Tisch., κατειργάσθαι, 
after A, B, Ὁ, 8, al., Clem. The change could easily have taken place from the 
fact that the aorist form of the word is the prevailing one in the N. T. (e.g., 
Rom. vii. 8; 1 Cor. v. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 11, etc.).— Ver. 5. Instead of τῶ ἑτοίμως 
ἔχοντι κρῖναι, Buttm. reads, τῷ ἑτοίμως κρίνοντι, a reading which is attested only 
by B.— Ver. 7. εἰς τὰς προσευχάς]. The article τάς is very suspicious ; Lachm. 
has omitted it; Tisch. has now again adopted it, with the remark : articulus 
non intellecta ea quam habet vi omittendus videbatur. It is wanting in A, B, 
=, and several min., and seems to be inserted here following chap. iii, 7.— 
Ver. 8. πρὸ πάντων δέ]. The omission of δέ in A, B, 13, Arm., Tol., etc., is a 
correction in order to connect the participle clause directly with the preceding 
verbb. fin. —7 ἀγάπη]. Rec. after several min. and Theoph.—7, however, is 
spurious, after A, B, K, L, P, &, etc. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted the 
article ; Griesb. regards it as at least suspicious. —«adinre]. After A, B, K, al., 
Copt., Arm., etc., Clem. Rom., Syr., ete. (Lachm., Tisch., much recommended 
by Griesb.) ; instead of the Rec. καλύψει, after L, P, &, which is easily explained 
from Jas. v. 20.— Ver. 9. γογγυσμῶν]. Rec., after K, L, P, Oec.; on the other 
hand, A, B, 8, al.,m., Syr., Arm., Vulg., Cyr., etc., are in favor of the singular, 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.: γογγυσμοῦ. The plural from Phil. ii. 14. — Ver. 13. 


308 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


καθό]. Instead of the Rec. καθώς, rightly accepted by Griesb., after almost all 
authorities. — Ver. 14. τὸ τῆς δοξης]. Scholz and Lachm. add καὶ δυνάμεως, which 
occurs in A, P, δὲ (τῆς dvv.), several min., etc. In B, K, L, many min., and 
Fathers, the adjunct is wanting; Tisch., too, has omitted it. It may quite as 
well have been omitted later as superfluous, as added by way of strengthening. 
- ἀναπαύεται]. Instead of this, A and several min. have ἐπαναπαύεται, after Luke 
x. 6; some other authorities read ἀναπέπαυται, after 2 Cor. vii. 13. — The genuine- 
ness of the words, κατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται, κατὰ ὁὲ υμᾶς δοξάζεται, is at least 
doubtful ; 1t 1s supported by K, L, P, etc., Harl., Tol., etc., Thph., Oec., Cypr.; 
whilst it is opposed by A, B, &, al., Syr., Aeth., Copt., ete., Tert., Ambr., Beda 
(Lachm. and Tisch.). Whilst De Wette and Wiesinger declare the adjunct to 
be suspicious, and Schott looks upon it as spurious, Hofm. considers it genuine, 
because, in his opinion, without it the proper connection of ver. 15 with what 
precedes would be wanting. — Ver. 15. Instead of ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, Lachm., 
following B, writes ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος ; on it Tisch. observes, videtur elegantiae 
causa ejectum o. — Ver, 16. ev τῷ Ovouate τούτῳ is the reading of A, B, x, al., 
Syr., utr., Erp., Copt., ete., Cypr.. Ephr., Oec. (Lachm., Tisch.). There is less 
evidence for the Rec. ἐν τῷ μέρει τουτῳ, which occurs in K, L, P, ete., and probably 
arose out of 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3.— Ver. 17. Instead of nuov, A**, al., Aeth., 
Slav., Thph., ete., read ὑμῶν, --- Ver. 19. ὡς πιστῷ κτιστῇ]. Ree. according to K, 
L, P, almost all min., several vss., and Fathers (Tisch. ἢ). Lachm. and Tisch. 
§ have omitted ὡς, after A, B, 8, several min., Copt., Aeth., Arm., Vulg., Athan. 
It is difficult to decide which is the correct reading ; ὡς may have been inserted, 
following Peter’s habitual mode of expression; on the other hand, it may have 
been omitted in order to make πιστῷ κτιστῇ purely terminative. — αὑτῶν, after 
A, G, K, καὶ, ete., etc., is to be preferred to ἑαυτῶν. --- Instead of ἀγαθυποιία, which 
occurs in B, K, L, P, δὲ, pl., al., Theoph., Oec., and is accepted by Tisch., 
Lachm., after A, al., Vulg., etc., reads the plural ἀγαθοποιΐαις. 


Ver. 1. Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) capxi]. In these words the 
apostle returns to chap. iii. 18, in order to subjoin the following exhorta- 
tion. —capxi is not “in the flesh” (Luther), but, “according to the flesh ;” 
comp. iii. 18. This is made prominent because the believer’s sufferings, 
too, under persecutions, touch the flesh only; comp. Matt. x. 28. παθόντος 
is not to be limited to the suffering of Christ before His death, but com- 
prehends the latter also. It is, however, incorrect to understand, with 
Hofmann, παθόντος at once as identical with ἀποθανόντος, and in connection 
with σαρκί to explain: “that Christ by His life in the flesh submitted for 
our sake to a suffering which befell Him—that for our sake He allowed 
His life in the flesh to come to an end” (). --- καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν 
ὁπλίσασθε]. καὶ with reference to Christ: “ye also:” the disciple must be 
like the master. It lies to hand to translate ἔννοια (besides here, only in 
Heb. iv. 12) as equivalent here to “disposition of mind” (De Wette,; 
Weiss, p. 288) ; but ἔννοια means always “ thought, consideration” (Wiesinger, 
Schott).1 There is here also no reference to the mind of Christ in His 
sufferings. τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν refers back to the πάσχειν σαρκί of Christ 


1 Reiche erroneously appeals in support of passages in Proy. v. 2, xxiii. 19, LXX., and 
this meaning, ‘‘ disposition of mind,’ to the Wisd. ii. 14. 


CHAP. ΤΥΣ Υ' 809 
Himself, so that the sense is, that since Christ suffered according to the 
flesh, they too should not refuse the thought of like Him suffering according 
to (or on) the flesh. ὅτι gives the ground of the exhortation. Hofmann, 
Wiesinger, and Schott take ὅτι as explaining τὴν abr, ἔννοιαν. Incorrectly ; 
for the πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας will not admit of an application to Christ, inas- 
much as the expression does not presuppose generally a former “relation to 
sin,” but former sinning itself. —The verb ὁπλέζεσθαι, in the N. T. az. Aey., 
is in classical writers often construed with the accusative. (Soph. Electra, 
v. 991: θράσος ὁπλίζεσθαι) ; while applied to every kind of equipment, e.g., 
of ships, it here refers to the Christian’s calling as one of conflict. — ὅτι ὁ 
In Luther’s translation: “for he who 
suffers on the flesh, he ceaseth from sin,” the present is incorrectly substi- 
tuted for the preterite tense: ἐν σαρκί ; correctly: “on the flesh.” Hofmann’s 
rendering is wrong: “in the flesh,” which, compared with the ἐν σαρκί 
preceding, would imply “that whilst Christ’s life in the flesh ended with 
His suffering, our sufferings took place with continued life in the flesh” (!). 
The reading σαρκί, “according to the flesh,” conveys the same idea; cf. 
Winer, 384 (E. T., 412). -- πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας]. The mid. παύομαι is in the 
classics frequently joined with the genitive.! In this way πέπαυται here is 
explained by most interpreters as equivalent to: “he has ceased from sin, 
that is, he has given up sinning.” The word may also be taken as the perf. 
pass. according to the construction παύειν τινά τινος, equivalent to: “to cause 
one to give up, to desist from a thing.” πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας would then mean: 
“he has been brought to cease from sin, to sin no more” (Schott: “ brought 
away from sinful conduct’). Hofmann erroneously asserts that “παύειν 
τινὰ ἁμαρτίας would in a quite general way mean: action such as brings it 
about that the individual is ended with sin;” that is to say, in the sense 
that his relation to sin is at an end.? For the genitive with παύειν denotes 
always a condition or an activity of him who is the object of παύειν. --- It 
makes no essential difference in the thought, whether παύειν be taken here 
as a middle (Weiss) or as a passive (De Wette, Wiesinger). The idea: 
“through Christ immunitatem nactus sum,” is expressed here neither in the 
one case nor in the other (Weisinger). — The clause here has the form of a 
general statement, the meaning of which is, that by suffering as to the flesh 
a ceasing of sin is effected. This idea, in many respects a true one, may 
according to the connection be defined thus: he who suffered on account of 
sin, that is, on account of his opposition to sin, has in such wise broken 
with sin that it has no more power over him (Weiss). It is incorrect, with 
several of the earlier commentators, as also Schott, to understand παθών in 


παθὼν ἐν σαρκί πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας]. 


teg., 11. vii. 290: παυσώμεθα μάχης ; 3 Genuinely catholic is the remark of Lori- 


Herod. i. 41: τῆς μάχης ἐπαύσαντο; Herodian. 
" vii. 10, 16: τῆς τε ὀργῆς ὁ δῆμος ἐπαύσατο. 

2 Thus, too, Schott: “Ἢ who has expe- 
rienced the παθεῖν σαρκί is delivered from his 
former relation to sin.” But Schott admits 
that ‘‘a release from sin must be thought of, 
in so far as sin determined the conduct and 
made it sinful.” 


nus on wen. ἁμαρτίας : ““ Peccatorum nomine 
absolute posito gravia intelliguntur, quae vo- 
camus mortalia; nam desinere atque quiescere 
a levibus et venialibus, eximium privilegium 
est, praeterque Deiparam definire non possu- 
mus, an alii ulli concessum.” 


310 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


a spiritual sense, either of the being dead with Christ in baptism, according 
to Rom. vi. 7 (Schott), or of the putting to death of the old man (Gerhard), 
Calvin.? Opposed to such an interpretation is the subjoined σαρκί, by which 
this παθών here is expressly marked as identical with the παθών used with 
reference to Christ; aud the apostle in no way hints that that παθών is 
employed in a spiritual sense. It is evidently entirely a mistake to 
understand by ὁ παθών Christ, as Fronmiiller does, — πέπ, ἁμαρτ. being thus 
in no way appropriate (doubtless Jachmann explains: “because Christ 
hath removed sin for Himself, that is, hath shown that it is possible to be 
without sin” [!]); nor is it less so to assume, finally, with Steiger, that 
here “the apostle unites together the different persons, the head and the 
members in their unity,” so that the clause would contain the double idea: 
“Christ suffering as to the body made us free from sin,” and “we, by 
participating through faith in the sufferings of Christ, die unto sin.” 
Hofmann, too, unjustifiably gives the clause the double reference — to 
Christ and to the Christian; to Christ, “in as far as He by His bodily 
death was finished with sin, which He took upon Himself for the purpose 
of atoning for it;” to the Christian, “in so far as he is spiritually dead 
whilst still alive in the body, and so is translated into a life in which he 
goes free from the guilt and slavery of sin.” In these interpretations 
thoughts are supplied to which the context makes no allusion.” 8 

Ver. 2. εἰς τὸ μηκέτι, x.7.2.]. The words may be connected either with 
the exhortation ὁπλίσασθε or with πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας. De Wette, Brickner, 
‘ Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofm. justly prefer the former connection, inas- 
much as the infinitival clause expressive of a purpose stands related more 
naturally to the imperative, than to a subordinate clause containing a 
general statement (otherwise Zezschwitz and the former exposition in this 
commentary). Still it is incorrect to connect εἰς here with ὁπλίζεσθαι, as in 
the common phrase: ὁπλίζεσθαι εἰς τὸ μάχεσθαι (Schott). Had the apostle 
meant this, he could not have separated by a parenthesis words which so 
directly belong to each other ; εἰς can only add the nearer definition of the 
aim to which ὁπλιζ, is directed. —dvOpdmwv ἐπιθυμίαις, ἀλλὰ θελήματι Θεοῦ]. 
The datives are to be explained either as τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ Gv, chap ii. 24 
(Briickner, Wiesinger), or they express the pattern according to which 
(Hofm.); as in Acts xv. 1; Gal. v. 16, 25, etc.4 The latter view is to be 
preferred on account of the idea τὸν... βιῶσαι χρόνον. “ἀνθρώπων and Θεοῦ 
are antitheses, as are also the manifold lusts of men, and the one uniform 
will of God” (Wiesinger). The notion that by ἐπιθυμίαι are to be under- 
stood the lusts, not of the readers, but of those only by whom they were 
surrounded (Schott, Hofm.), must be rejected as arbitrary. — τὸν ἐπίλοιπον 
ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι χρόνον]. With ἐν σαρκί, comp. 2 Cor. x. 3; Gal. ii. 20; Phil. 


1 “Qui carnem cum concupiscentiis suis in spurious, because of the difficulty and indis- 
Christo et cum Christo crucifigit, ille peccare tinctness of the thought. 


desinit.” 4 Gerh.: ‘* Praecipit ut normam vitae nos- 
2 ** Passio in carne significat nostri abnega- trae statuamus non hominum voluntatem, sed 
tionem.” Dei voluntatem.” 


3 Reiche regards the entire sentence as 


CHAP. IV. 3. 311 


i. 22,24. σάρξ expresses as little here as in ver. 1, an ethical conception ; 
it denotes the earthly human nature to which the mortal body belongs. — 
The verb βιοῦν is az, Aey. in the N. T. The form βιῶσαι is to be found in 
the Attic writers, but it is less common than the 2d aor.: βιῶναι. ---- ἐπίλοιπος, 
in like manner, dz. Aey.: “the remaining time in the flesh;” an idea similar 
to ὁ τῆς παροικίας χρόνος, chap. i. 17. With the whole thought, comp. Rom. 
ἜΤΙ: ἐῶν 

Ver. 3. A fuller explanation is now given of the thought expressed in 
the previous verse, that the Christians should no longer live after the lusts 
of men, but according to the will of God; hence yap ---ἀρκετος: Matt 
vi. 34, x. 25; correctly Wiesinger: “the expression 1s here a μείωσις ” 
Gerhard: in eo quod ait “sufficit” est quidam asterismus sive liptotes, qua 
mitigat Ap. exprobrationis asperitatem. Schott introduces a foreign applica- 
tion when he explains: “in it you have enough to repent of and to make 
amends for.” The construction as in Isocrates (in Panegyr.): ἱκανὸς γὰρ ὁ 
παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ te τῶν δεινῶν οὐ yeyove; COMP. ἱκανούσθω, Ezek. xliv. 6, 
xlv. 9. ἐστι simply is to be supplied; not, with Steiger, “should be.” — 
ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος points back to μηκέτι; in contrast to τὸν ἐπίλοιπον... 
χρόνον. -- τὸ βούλημα Tov ἐθνῶν κατείργασθαι]. The infinitive is, in free con- 
struction, dependent on ἀρκετός, as it also stands with dpxei ; cf. Winer, p. 298 f. 
[E. T., 315 t.}. The inf. perf. 1s selected “to designate the former life of 
sin, which has once for all been brought to a close” (Schott). — τῶν ἐθνῶν is 
not evidence that the epistle was addressed to aforetime Jews. When Jach- 
mann says: “the apostle could never say of the heathen, that they lived 
according to the will of the heathen,” it must be observed, that if the readers 
were formerly heathen, the βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν was undoubtedly their own βου- 
Aqua, but that ἐθνῶν is explained by the fact that they were now heathen no 
longer (as opposed to Weiss). — πεπορευμένους must be referred to ὑμᾶς, to be 
supplied in thought to κατειργάσθαι If the right reading be ἡμὶν after ἀρκετὸς 
᾿ γάρ, Peter would include himself, and ἡμᾶς would have to be supplied. The 
Vulg. is indefinite: his qui ambulaverunt. Beza’s view is inappropriate, that 
Peter refers here not only to the readers of the epistle (whom he considers 
to have been Jewish Christians), but also to their ancestors, i-e., the former 
ten tribes of Israel. With πορεύεσθαι ἐν, cf. Luke i. 6; 2 Pet. ii. 10. — ἀσελ- 
yeiac, “ excesses of every kind,” embracing specially unchastity; cf. Rom. xiii. 
13; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Gal. v. 19; 3 Mace. ii. 26, οἷο. Buddeus considers it to 
mean nothing else than obscoenitas et stuprorum flagitiosa consuetudo; Lucian 
has the expression: ἀσελγέστεροι τῶν ὄνων. --- ἐπιθυμίαις in the plural denotes 
Jfleshly lusts in themselves; although not limited to sensual desires only, 
it yet includes these chiefly. — οἰνοφλυγίαις]ῆ. am. dey. in the N. T.; the verb 
οἰνοφλυγεῖν, LX X., Deut. xxi. 20, Heb. 820; Luther: “intoxication ;” better, 
“ drunkenness.” 1 — κώμοις, besides here, only in Rom. xiii. 13, Gal. v. 21, 
where, as here with πότοις, it is joined with μέθαι : commissationes, properly : 
“carousals ;” ef. Pape, s. v.— πότοις]. ἅπ. Aey.; chiefly applied to social drinking 


1 Andronicus Rhodus, lib. περὶ παθῶν, p.6: Philo (V. Mf, 1, ὃ 22) calls otvopAvya an 
οινοφλυγίια ἐστὶν ἐπιθυμία οἴνου ἄπληστος. ἀπλήρωτος ἐπιθυμία. 


912 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

at the banquet.!— καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρείαις designates heathen idolatrous 
practices specially. ἀθέμιτος, in the N. T. occurring, besides in this passage, 
only in Acts x. 28, gives marked prominence to that in the nature of εἰδωλ. 
which is antagonistic to the divine law. Bengel: guibus sanctissimum Dei 
jus violatur.2 This description is only applicable to such persons as were 
formerly heathen, not to the Jews; to the latter only in the days before the 
Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Weiss (p. 113), in opposition to this, 
wrongly appeals to Rom. ii 17 ff.; for the reproach there made against the 
Jews bears an impress entirely different from the description here given; 
nor is the ἱεροσυλεῖν in that passage identical with the practice of idolatry. 
It is altogether arbitrary to take the expression εἰδωλολατρείαι here in a wider 
sense, so as to exclude from it idolatry proper, and it is further opposed by 
the expression ἀθεμίτοις. 

Ver.4 ἐν ᾧ Sevigovra]. Many interpreters apply ἐν ὦ directly to the 
thought contained in the following clause: μὴ συντρεχόντων. 
Pott: ἐν τούτῳ de ξενίζ,, ὅτι μὴ συντρέχετε; incorrectly, ἐν ᾧ is connected rather 
with what precedes. Still, it can hardly be right to explain, that as the per- 
fects κατειργασθαι and πεπορευμένους point to the fact that they no longer live 
as they had lived, this was the matter of wonderment (De Wette, Wiesinger, 
Schott,? and in this commentary). It is more natural to take it thus— ἐν ὦ 
equivalent to “on the ground of this” (that is, because ye have thus lived), 
and the absolute genitive following as equal to “inasmuch as ye run not 
with them,” so that the sense is: “on account of this, that ye thus walked in 
times past, your countrymen think it strange when ye do so no longer” 
(Hofm.); with é ᾧ, comp. John xvi. 80 and Meyer in loc. The genitive 
absolute assigns, as it frequently does, the occasioning cause (Winer, p. 195 
[ΕΒ T.,207]). The word ἐενίζεσθαι (in its common meaning, equivalent to 
“to be a guest;” thus it is used frequently in the N. T.) here means: “to 
be amazed,” “to feel astonishment ;” comp. ver. 12; Acts xvii. 20.4— μὴ συν- 
τρεχόντων ὑμῶν]. “uy refers the matter to the amazement of the heathen.” 
συντρέχειν, Mark vi. 33 and Acts iii. 11: to run together, confluere; here, “to 
run in company with any one.” — εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν τῆς ἀσωτίας ἀνάχυσιν states the 
aim of the συντρ. With dowria, comp. Eph. v. 18; Tit. i. 6: “lewd and disso- 
lute conduct.” The word ἀνάχυσις is to be found in Aelian, De An., xvi. 15, 
used synonymously with ἐπίκλυσις, and Script. Graec. Ap. Luper. in Harpocr. 
with ὑπέρκλυσις ; it means, accordingly, “the overflowing.” This sense is to 
be kept hold of, and τρέχειν εἰς ἀσωτίας to be explained of the haste with which 
dissoluteness is allowed to break forth and to overflow. According to Hofm., 


. . ἀνάχυσιν; 


1 Appian, B. C., 1., p. 700: ὃ δὲ Σερτώριος 
e+ « τὰ πολλὰ ἣν ἐπὶ τρυφῆς, γυναίξι καὶ κώμοις 
καὶ πότοις σχολάζων. 

2 Schott unjustitiably maintains that the 
εἰδωλολατρείαι are termed ἀθέμιτοι not in them- 
selves, but on account of the immoral, volup- 
tuous ceremonies connected with them. The 
adject. is added because they form an anti- 
thesis, in the strictest sense, to God’s holy 
prerogative. It is unwarrantable to assert 


that εἰδωλολατρεία could only be termed ἀθέμι- 
τος when practised by the Jews, not when by 
the heathen. 

8 It is true that ““ἃ surprise calling forth 
displeasure” (Schott) is meant; but this does 
not lie in the word itself. 

4 The object. to ξενίζεσθαι is either in the 
dative, as ver. 12 (Polyb. iii. 68.9: ἐξενίζοντο 
τῷ Ti συμβεβηκὸς εἶναι παρὰ τὴν προσδοκίαν), 
or is subjoined by means of διά τι or ἐπί τινι. 


CHAP. IV. 5, 6. 313 
it denotes the doings of those who are in haste to pour out from them their 
indwelling lasciviousness, so that it overflows and spreads in all directions. 
From the explanation of Strabo, iii. p. 206 A: λέγονται ἀναχύσεις αἱ πληρούμεναι 

“τῇ θαλάττῃ KoiAadec ἐν πλημμυρίσι, it is unjustifiable to derive the meaning “ sen- 
tina, mire” (second edition of this commentary), or “flood” (third edition), 
or “stream” (Schott).1 — βλασφημοῦντες characterizes their amazement more 
nearly as one which prompts them to speak evil of those whose conduct 
causes them astonishment (not “ Christianity,” as Hofmann thinks). Schott 
justly remarks that “it is not the being struck with amazement in itself 
which is, strictly speaking, of significance here, but that definite form of it 
expressed by βλασφημοῦντες, placed last for the sake of emphasis.” 

Ver. 5 points to the judgment which awaits the evil-speaking heathen: 
οἱ ἀποδώσοὐσι λόγον]. drod, λόγον (Matt. xii. 36; Heb. xiii. 17; Acts xix. 40). 
Antithesis to αἰτεῖν λόγον, chap. iil. 15. — τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι, “that is, the Sav- 
iour risen, and seated at the right hand, chap. iii. 22,” De Wette. — The 
expression: ἑτοίμως ἔχειν, “to be ready,” with the exception of here, only in 
Acts xxi. 13; 2 Cor. xii. 14. ---- κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς]. As often in the 
N. T., of the last judgment, which by ἑτοίμ. ἔχ. is pointed out as near at 
hand; comp. ver. 7. ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς does not denote some dead and some 
alive, but the aggregate of all, whether they be living or already dead when 
the day of judgment comes; comp. Acts x. 42; 2 Tim. iv. 1.2 It is erro- 
neous to understand by the quick and the dead the Christians only (Wichel- 
haus, Schott), or those who speak evil only. Peter, by naming Him to 
whom the evil-speakers shall render an account, the Judge of the quick and 
the dead, implies thereby that they are not to remain unpunished, whether 
they die before the day of judgment or not. And this as a testimony to the 
justice of God, should serve to comfort the Christians under the calumyies 
which they had to endure, and exhort them not to be led aside by them to a 
denial of their Christian walk. It must further be observed, that this pas- 
sage adds the last to those elements of the glory of the exalted Saviour men- 
tioned at the close of the last chapter, namely, the office of judge which He 
will execute at the end of the days. 

Ver. 6. This verse, which has been explained in very diverse ways,® is 
meant, as the γάρ following upon εἰς τοῦτο shows, to give the ground or the 
explanation of a statement going before. The question is: Which state- 
ment is it? The sound of the words serves to suggest that in vexpoig we have 


1 Heaych. and Suidas interpret ἀνάφυσις 
also by βλακεία, ἔκλυσις ; thus Gerhard : 
“virium exolutio, mollities;” according to 
De Wette it means profusio, wantonness; but 
it is better to keep to the above signification. 

2 Gerhard: “" Vivos, quos judex veniens 
reperiet vivos, mortuos, quos ex sepuleris in 
vitam revocabit.”” Several commentators erro- 
neously understand the words ζῶντας καὶ 
νεκρούς in a figurative sense; Joh. Huss: 
vivos in gratia ad beatitudinem, mortuos in 
culpa ad damnationem ;” Bened. Arias: ‘ vivos 


adbuce in carne illa Adami; mortuos in Chris- 
to.” 

3 Lorinus enumerates twelve different in 
terpretations; nor does that complete the 
number. Many commentators are uncertain, 
and confess that they do not understand the 
true meaning of the verse; thus also, Luther, 
who even thinks it possible that the text has 
been corrupted. Reiche, too, is inclined to 
regard the passage as a gloss added by a later 
hand. 


914 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


a resumption of the νεκρούς immediately preceding, and that what is said in 
this verse is to be regarded as the ground of the thought that judgment will 
be pronounced, not only upon the living, but upon the dead also. This assump- 
tion seems to be corroborated by the καί before νεκροῖς. The fact —to which« 
Peter appeals — on which this thought is based is expressed in εὐαγγελίσθη. 
But it is precisely this idea, that the gospel was preached to the dead, — 
to all the dead,— which has induced the interpreters to deviate from the 
explanation lying most naturally to hand. It is entirely unjustifiable, with 
Zezschwitz (thus Alethaeus already, and Starkius in Wolf), to connect the 
verse with vy. 1 and 2, regard vv. 3-5 as a digression, and understand under 
vexpoic the Christians who are already dead when the day of judgment arrives. 
yap certainly must refer back to ver. 5; according to Schott, it applies to 
the whole homogeneous statement of ver. 5; according to Bengel, to τῷ 
ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι ; in their opinion, likewise, vexpoic is to be understood of Chris- 
tians already dead. This determination of the expression, however, is 
arbitrary, as no mention is made in ver. 5 of the Christians.1 It lies more 
to hand to take the νεκροῖς as meaning the evil-speakers mentioned in ver. 5. 
On this interpretation, the apostle tells the Christians who were being evil 
spoken of, not to forget that those calumniators who died before the judg- 
ment would not on that account escape punishment. Still it is difficult to 
see why the apostle should give such special prominence to this,— more 
especially with the further remark, that the gospel was preached unto them, 
iva... ζῶσι, «.7.A. Wiesinger justly remarks: “that the author should so 
expressly accept the assumption of their death, does not well agree with the 
ἑτοίμως ἔχειν, and not with the subsequent πάντων dé τὸ τέλος ἤγγικε." — Hof- 
mann, whilst correctly recognizing that by vexpoic the apostle here does not 
denote Christians only, or unbelievers only, gives a closer definition of the 
term by applying it to those of the dead to whom, during their lifetime, 
the gospel had been preached. At the same time, however, he assumes that 
the thought here expressed “serves to confirm or explain the whole state- 
ment that the slanderers, without exception, whether living or dead, must 
render account to the Lord.” But, on the one hand, the apostle in no 
way alludes to the limitation of the idea here too supposed; and, on the 
other, it is incorrect to understand by ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ver. 5, the calumni- 
ators only. If all arbitrariness is to be avoided, then νεκροῖς must here be 
taken in the same wide sense as νεκρούς in ver. 5. Any limitation of the 
general idea is without justification,— indicated, as such is, neither by 
the want of the article before vexpoic,? nor by the circumstance that the slan- 
derers are the subject in ver. 5. Accordingly, it cannot be denied that the 
apostle gives expression to the thought that the gospel has been preached 
to all who are dead at the time when the last judgment arrives. With the 


1 It is evidently still farther-fetched to un- go to prove that the expression vexpot, when 
stand νεκροῖς a8 meaning the believers of the applied to a// the dead, has not necessarily the 
O. T., as is done by several of the earlier com- article prefixed to it. Elsewhere, too, νεκροί 
mentators, — Bullinger, Aretius, ete. has no article: cf. Luke xvi. 305 Acts x. 42; 

2 The phrases, ἐγείρειν, ἐγείρεσθαι, ἀναστῆ- Rom. xiv. 9. 


ναι ἐκ νεκρῶν (see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 153]), 


CHAP. IV. 6. 815 


view of chap. iii. 19, 20, which is in harmony with the words, this thought 
need occasion no stumbling. In that passage, it is true, the ἐκήρυξεν applies 
only to the spirits of those who perished in the flood. But they alone are 
mentioned there, not because the κήρυγμα was addressed exclusively to them, 
but because the apostle recognized in the deluge the type of baptism.’ Ac- 
cordingly, though there be a close connection of thought internally between 
what is here said and chap. iii. 19, 20, it is nevertheless erroneous, with 
Steiger, Konig, Giider, Wiesinger, Weiss, p. 228 f., to take εὐηγγελίσθη as 
applying only to those there named. — εὐηγγελίσθη is put here impersonally : 
“the gospel was proclaimed,” neither ὁ Χριστός nor ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Bengel, 
Grotius, Pott, etc.), nor any thing similar, is to be supplied. 

εἰς τοῦτο. . . ἵνα (comp. chap. iii. 9, John xviii. 37, and other passages) 
points to the design of the fact stated in εὐηγγελίσθη ; on this the chief accent 
of the sentence lies. The apostle bases the thought, that the Lord stands 
ready to judge the dead also, not alone on the circumstance that the gospel 
has been preached to them too, but that it has been preached for the purpose 
which he states in what follows. This purpose is expressed in the sentence 
consisting of two members: iva κριθῶσιν μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκὶ. ζῶσιν δὲ κατὰ 
Θεὸν πνεύματι. According to the grammatical structure, κριθῶσιν and ζῶσιν are 
co-ordinate with each other, and both are equally dependent on ia. In 
sense iva applies, however, only to ζῶσιν, inasmuch as the first member must 
be regarded as a parenthesis. The construction here is similar to that which 
is frequently to be found in classical writers in clauses connected by μὲν... 
δέ.3 This conjunction, as Hartung? remarks, discloses the contrast. The 
aorist κριθῶσιν shows the judgment to be one which, at the commencement of 
the last judgment, is by their very death executed upon those who are then 
dead, and this quite independently of whether the gospel was preached to 
them before or after death. It is accordingly erroneous to understand this 
judgment (κριθῶσιν) to mean the judgment of repentance (Gerhard), or that 
of the flood (De Wette); it is the judgment of death. as nearly all expositors 
have rightly acknowledged. Hofmann, with only an appearance of right- 
ness, asserts that the expression of the apostle can be appropriately applied 
only to those who did not suffer this judgment of death till after the gospel 
had been preached to them. The apostle could express himself thus as 
regards those also with whom this was not the case, all the more readily 
that they were not set free from the condition of death immediately on hear- 
ing the gospel preached, nor then even, when they had received it in faith. 
Accordingly, the interpretation is: “in order that they, after the flesh, indeed, 
judged by death, may live according to the spirit’ (Wiesinger). The antithesis 
σαρκὶ... πνεύματι is here in the same sense as in chap. iii. 18. Giider’s 
opinion, that oapg here denotes the sinful bias which the dead possess, is 
unwarranted; nowhere in Scripture is capé attributed to the already de- 


1 Erroneous is the opinion of several com- 2 See Matthiae, Ausf. Griech. G7., 2d ed., 
mentators (Pott, Jachmann, Kénig, Grimm in p. 1262. 
Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1835), that these 3 Lehre v. d. Partikl., Part 11., p. 406. 


only are named by way of example because 
they were specially ungodly. 


316 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

parted. —xard ἀνθρώπους means nejther “by men,” nor “according to the 
judgment of men;” but “according to the manner of men, as is peculiar to 
them.” — The second member, ζῶσι δὲ κατὰ Θεὸν πνεύματι, corresponds as to 
form entirely with the first clause, only that here the verb is present, 
because it mentions the future condition aimed at. jv is antithetical to κρι- 
θῆναι, and denotes the eternal life which in the judgment is awarded to those 
who in faith have received the gospel. It is more nearly defined by κατὰ Θεόν, 
which (corresponding to the κατὰ ἀνθρώπους) can only mean, “ according to the 
manner of God, as corresponds with the character of God.’ 1 — This final clause 
states the purpose which this εὐαγγελίζεσθαι should serve; whether, and in 
how far, the object is attained, is not said. 

Ver. 7. Here begins the third series of exhortations, which has special 
reference to life in the church, and is linked on to the thought of the near- 
ness of the end of all things (see Introd., § 2). — πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν]. 
de marks clearly the transition to another train of thought. It is accordingly 
incorrect to connect the clause with what precedes (Hofmann). πάντων τὸ 
τέλος, equal to “the end ofall things,” refers back to the foregoing ἑτοίμως 
ἔχοντι κρῖναι; With the judgment comes the τέλος. πάντων, placed first by 
way of eniphasis, is not masc. (Hensler: “the end of all men”) but neut. ;? 
comp. 2 Pet. 111. 10, 11; with τέλος, Matt. xxiv. 6, 14. -- ἤγγικε]. Comp. 
tom. ΧΙ. 12; Jas. v. 8; Phil. iv. 5. That the apostle, without fixing the 
time or the hour of it, looked upon the advent of Christ and the end of 
the world, —in its condition hitherto,— therewith connected, as near at 
hand, must be simply admitted. — σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ vapate]. The first 
exhortation, grounded (οὖν) on the thought of the nearness of the end of the 
world. cuwdp.; Vulg.: estole PRUDENTES; in this sense the word is not in 
use in the N. T.; it means rather temperateness of spirit, i.e., the govern- 
ing omnum immoderatorum affectuum; with the passage comp. 1 Tim. 11. 9; 
Tit. ii. 6,4 in contrast to the licentiousness of the heathen described in ver. 2 
(Wiesinger). —vmpare]. Vulg.: vigilate, inexactly ; νήφειν has here the same 
meaning as in chap. i. 13. It is not enough to understand both expressions 
of abstinence from sensual indulgence. — εἰς (τὰς) προσευχάς, not in orationibus 
(Vulg.), for εἰς states the aim of the cwoo, and νηφεῖν, but “ unto prayer,” that 
is, so that you may always be in the right frame of mind for prayer. If τάς 
be genuine, it is to be explained on the supposition that the apostle took the 
prayers of Christians for granted. —A mind excited by passions and lusts 


1 Hofmann interprets κατὰ Θεόν insorrectiy 
by ‘because of God,” to which he adds the 
more precise definition, ‘‘ since it is God who 
gives this life, so that it is therefore counsti- 
tuted accordingly.” — Jachmann’s view is very 
singular; he holds that κατὰ Θεόν means “f with 
reference to their divine part; ’’ nor, he thinks, 
should this occasion surprise, for, as the sen- 
suous nature of man is in biblical language 
personified by © ἄνθρωπος͵ ΒΟ too his invisible, 
divine nature might be personified by ὁ Θεός. 

2 Oecumenius gives two interpretations: 
τὸ TEAOS* ἀντι TOU, ἡ συμπλήρωσις, ἡ συντέλεια" 


ἢ τέλος ἤγγικεναι τῶν πάντων προφητῶν" τοῦτο 
δὲ ἀληθεῖ λόνω, ὃ Χριστός, ἡ πάντων γὰρ τελείο- 
τῆς, αὐτός ἐστιν. The second is evidently 
false. 

% According to Schott, ἤγγικε means as 
much as: “ποὺ only is there nothing more 
between the Christian’s present state of salva- 
tion and the end, but the former is itself 
already the end, i.e., the beginning of the 
end.” 

4 Hemming: “ σωφροσύνη, equal to, affect- 
uum et voluntatis harmonia.” 


CHAP. IV. 8.; 317 
cannot pray. The plural points to repeated prayer (Schott). Schott, with- 
out any warrant, would understand by it the prayers of the Church only. — 
The fact that both ideas are synonymous, forbids any separation, with De 
Wette and Hofmann, of σωφρονήσατε from νήψατε, and the conjoining of εἰς τ. 
προσευχάς With the latter term only. 

Ver. 8. πρὸ πάντων dé]; cf. Jas. v. 12. — τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς (1.6., ἀλλήλους) ἀγά- 
any ἐκτενὴ ἔχοντες. The second exhortation. The participle shows that this 
and the first exhortation belong closely together. Luther translates inex- 
actly: “have . . . a burning love.” Love one to another, as the charac- 
teristic sign (John xiii. 35) of Christians, is presupposed; the apostle’s 
exhortation is directed to this, that the love should be ἐκτενής.} ---- For ἐκτενῆς, 
ef. chap. i. 22. There is nothing to show that the apostle gave expression 
to this exhortation with special reference to the circumstance “that in the 
case of his readers brotherly love was united with danger and persecution ” 
(Schott). — ὅτι (7) ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν]. A proverbial saying after 
Proy. x. 19: MIAN APIA Oywa-Fd 9 D'IWD TPA ANIW (the second half is 
incorrectly translated by the LXX., πάντας δὲ τοὺς μὴ φιλονεικοῦντας καλύπτει (φιλία): 
“ Love covereth (maketh a covering over) all sins.” The sense of the words 
is evident from the first half of the verse; whilst hatred stirs up strife and 
contention (by bringing the sins of others to the light of day), love, with 
forgiving gentleness, covers the sins of others (and thus works concord).2— 
In its original meaning, accordingly, the proverb has reference to what love 
does as regards the sins of others; love in its essential nature is forgiveness, 
and that not of some, but of many sins; 1 Cor. xiii. 5,7; Matt. xviii. 21, 22. 
In this sense Estius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Steiger, Wiesinger, 
Weiss (p. 337 f.), Schott, Fronmiiller, etc., have rightly interpreted the 
passage, which then, serving as the basis of the preceding exhortation,? is 
intended to set forth the blessed influence of love on life in the church. 
Hofmann unjustly denies this (Beza: caritalem mutuam commendat ex eo, quod 
innumerabilia peccata veluti sepeliat, ac proinde pacis ac concordiae sit fautrix et 
conservatrix. Wiesinger: “Only by the forgiving, reconciling influence of 
love, can the destructive power of sin be kept away from church life”). 
Steiger (with whom Weiss and Fronmiiller agree) explains: “the apostle 
recommends the Christians to extend the limits of brotherly love and to 
‘strengthen themselves in it, because true love covers a multitude of sins;” but 
this is not to the point, inasmuch as the covering of many sins is peculiar 
to the ἀγάπη itself, and constitutes the reason why it should be ἐκτενῆς. Sev- 
eral expositors (Grotius, etc.) understand the words to have the same mean- 
ing here as in Jas. y. 20 (see Comment., in loc.), that is, that love in effecting 


1 Bengel: ‘Amor jam praesupponitur, ut τὰ ἀδικήματα (ef. Prov. xvii. 9).” But though 


sit vehemens, praecipitur.” 

2 As opposed to the view that Peter had 
this passage in his mind, De Wette asserts, 
that in ‘‘that case the apostle must have 
translated from the Hebrew the passage incor- 
rectly rendered by the LXX. This, however, 
is in itself improbable, as he would then have 
written πάσας Tas ἁμαρτίας, Or rather, πάντα 


it may be questioned whether Peter quoted 
directly from it, there can be no doubt, as 
even Briickner, Wiesinger, and Weiss admit, 
that the proverbial phrase arose out of that 
passage. 

3 Hottinger: “ὅτι indicare videtur (better, 
indicat) incitamentum aliquod, quo chris- 
tiavis amor iste commendatur.”’ 


318 THE ‘FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


the sinner’s conversion, procures the divine forgiveness for his many sins; 
but, on the one hand, “the apostle does not here regard his readers as erring 
brethren, of whom it might be .the duty of some to convert the others” 
(Wiesinger) ; and, on the other, “there is here not the slightest indication 
that the expression is not to be understood directly of the covering of sins 
as such, but of reclaiming labors” (Weiss). — Oecumenius already (ὁ μὲν γὰρ 
εἰς τὸν πλησίον ἔλεος, τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῖν ἵλεων ποιεῖ), and after him many Catholic 
expositors (Salmeron, Cornelius a Lapide, Lorinus, etc.), and several Protes- 
tants also (the latter sometimes, whilst distinctly defending the Protestant 
principle against Catholic applications of the passage),! understand the 
maxim of the blessing which love brings to him who puts it into practice. 
But if Peter had wished to express a thought similar to that uttered by 
Christ, Matt. vi. 14, 15,he would assuredly not have made use of words such 
as these, which in the nature of them bear not upon personal sins, but on 
those of others.? 

Ver. 9. In this and the following verses two manifestations of love are 
brought prominently forward, in which its ministering nature is revealed. 
First: φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους]. Cf. Rom. xii. 138; Heb. xiii. 2; 3 John 5; 
1 Tim. iii. 2, ete. The chief emphasis lies on the words which serve more 
closely to define the statement: ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ, “without murmuring,” i.e., 
murmuring at the trouble caused by the hospitality shown to brethren. 
The same thing is said in a more general way, Phil. 11. 14: πάντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς 
γογγυσμῶν καὶ διαλογισμῶν ; ef. 2 Cor. ix. 7: μὴ ἐκ λύπης, ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης. 

Ver. 10. Second manifestation of love. It is presupposed that each one 
has received a χάρισμα: ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβε χάρισμα]. καθώς, not equal to ὅς, but 
pro ratione qua, prouti (Wahl), “ according as.” — χάρισμα, as in Rom. xii. 6; 
1 Cor. xii. 4, 28; not an office in the church. Every man should, according 
to the kind of gift he has received (not according to the measure of it, 
ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέτρῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἔλαβε, vel ut Paulus: ὡς ὁ Θεὸς ἐμέρισε μέτρον χαρισμάτων, 
Rom. xii. 3; Pott: “still less can καθώς be referred to the manner of re- 
ceiving;” Lorinus: sicut GRATIS accepimus, ita gratis demus), administer 
it for his brethren, εἰς ἑαυτούς, i.e., for their benefit, and therefore for that 
of the entire community. διακονεῖν (a transitive verb, as in chap. i. 12): 
vocula emphatica; innuit Ap. quod propter dona illa nemo se debeat supra 


1 Vorstius: “Intelligit Ap. caritatem in 
causa esse, ut non tantum proximi nostri pec- 
cata humaniter tegamus, verum etiam ut Deus 
nobis ex pacto gratuito nostra peccata condo- 
net, non quod propter meritum seu dignitatem 
caritatis id fiat, sed quia caritas erga fratres 
conditio est, sine qua Deus nobis ignoscere 
non vult.” 

2 De Wette gives a peculiar combination of 
tbe various interpretations: ‘‘As the love 
which is required of us is a common love, 80 
the writer refers to the common sins still 
defacing the whole of Christian social life, but 
which, as single blemishes (!), are overshone, 
and made pardonable in God’s eye, by the 


light of that love which penetrates all; that is, 
in that this love produces mutual reconciliation 
avd improvement.” On this Briickner remarks, 
that what is true here is the thought that 
reciprocalness is a characteristic not of love 
only, but of all her actions, i.e., “‘ He whose 
love covers the sins of others, sees in like man- 
ner his own sins covered by the love of others.” 
But this makes ‘‘ the interpretation only more 
artificial, and removes it still farther from the 
simple phraseology of our passage”’ (Weiss). 
—Clemens Al. and Bernhard of Clairvaux 
(Sermo 23 in Cant.) understand ἀγάπη to 
mean the love of Christ (!). 


CHAP. IV. 11. 319 


alios efferre, aut dominium in alios affectare, sed aliorum ministrum sese sponte 
constituere (Gerhard). —d¢ καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος Θεοῦ]. With ὡς, ef. 
chap. i. 14: as is peculiar to the καλοῖς οἰκονόμοις, which, from their vocation, 
Christians should be. With οἰκονόμοι, cf. 1 Cor. iv. 1; Tit. i. 7. According 
to De Wette and Weiss, there is here an allusion to the parable of the talents, 
Matt. xxv. 14. -- καλός, expression of irreproachable excellence; see 1 Tim. 
iv. 6; 2 Tim. ii. 3. The Lord of the Christians, as the οἰκονόμοι, is God; the 
goods which He intrusts to their stewardship are His ποικίλη χαρις ; χάρις is 
here the sum of all that has fallen to the share of believers through the grace 
of God; the individual manifestations of it are the χαρίσματα, the homoge- 
neous character of which is marked by the singular, and their variety by 
ποικίλη here subjoined with reference to the preceding καθὼς. . . χάρισμα. 
Ver. 11. Species duas generi subjicit (Vorstius). From the general term 
χάρισμα, Peter selects two special functions for greater prominence. — εἴ τις 
λαλεῖ]. λαλεῖν is here the preaching in the church, which includes the zpo- 
φητεύειν, διδάσκειν, and παρακαλεῖν, mentioned in Rom, xii. 6-8. Pott is inexact 
in paraphrasing εἴ τις λαλεῖ by εἴ τις ἔχει τὸ χάρισμα τοὺ λαλεὶν (80, too, Schott: 
“if any one have the gift and vocation to speak’’), for λαλεῖν is not the gift, 
‘but the exercise of it. It is arbitrary to limit the application of the term 
to the official duties of the elders (Hemming: si quis docendi munus in ecclesia 
sustinet), for in the assemblies every one who possessed the necessary χώρισμα 
was at liberty to speak. —d¢ λόγια Θεοῦ]. λαλείτω ἃ λαλεὶ must be supplied ; 
or, better still, with Wiesinger: λαλοῦντες; cf. ἕκαστος. . . διακονοῦντες above; 
λόγια ---- as in classical Greek, chiefly of oracular responses — is applied in 
the N. T. only to the utterances or revelations of God, either to those 
in the O. T., as in Acts vii. 88, Rom. iii. 2, or those in the N. T., as Heb. 
vy. 12. The idea, prophecies, is too narrow. This exhortation presup- 
poses that whoever speaks in the congregation gives utterance, not to 
his own thoughts, but to the revelations of God; and it demands that he 
should do so in a manner (ὡς) conformable to them.— εἴ τις διακονεῖ]. διακονεῖν 
must not be understood as applying to the official work of the appointed 
deacons only; it embraces quaevis ministeria in ecclesia ab docendi officio dis- 
tincta (Gerhard; so, too, Wiesinger, who here cites Rom. xii. 8 and 1 Cor. 
xii. 28), but it refers specially to the care of the poor, the sick, and the 
strangers, either official, or according to the free-will of individual members 
of the church. —dc ἐξ ἰσχύος, «.7.4., Sc-, διακονείτω, or better διακονοῦντες : “ so 
ministering, as of,” etc. Here, too, it is presumed that the person ministering 
is not wanting in that strength which God supplies, and the exhortation is, 
that he should exercise his ability in a way corresponding with the fact that 
he received the strength necessary thereto from God, and not as “of himself 
possessing it.” χορηγεῖν, besides in this passage, occurs only in 2 Cor. ix. 10. 
(ἐπιχορηγεῖν is to be met with frequently, e.g., 2 Pet. i. 5). —iva, as stating 
their purpose, refers back to the exhortations in vv. 10 and 11, with special 
reference to the determinative clauses introduced by ὡς, --- ἐν πᾶσιν, “in all 
things” (Wiesinger), i.e., “in the practice of all the gifts, the exercise of 


1 Calvin: “ Quia guicquid habemus ad ministrandum virtutis solus ipse nobis suggerit.” 


320 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


which was connected with matters relating to the churches” (Schott) ; not 
equivalent to ἐν πᾶσιν ἔθνεσιν (Oec.), or “in you all” (De Wette: “as His 
true instruments”); cf. 1 Tim. 111. 11. — δοξάζηται ὁ Θεός, “in order that God 
may be glorified,” i.e., that He obtain the praise, since it will be evident from 
your conduct that you as His οἰκονόμοι have received (καθὼς éAaje) all things 
(τὰ λόγια, τὴν ἰσχύν) from Him. — διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ belongs to δοξάζηται, and 
points out that not the ability only, for the λαλεῖν and διακονεῖν, is communi- 
cated to the Christian through the agency of Christ,! but that all actual 
employment of it is effected by Christ. It is mistaken, with Hofmann, — 
who is not justified in appealing to Rom. xvi. 27 and Heb. xiii. 21 in sup- 
port of his assertion,—to connect διὰ ᾿1. Xp. with the following relative 
clause. Such a view is opposed not only to the natural construction, but to 
the thought, since God did not receive His δόξα and His κράτος first through 
Christ. — As a close, the doxology, ᾧ, may be referred either to Θεός (Oecu- 
menius, Calvin, Bengel, De Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott, 
Hofmann) or to ’l. Χριστοῦ (Grotius, Calov, Steiger). The first is the correct 
application, since ὁ Θεός is the subject of the clause and ἡ δόξα points back to 
δοξάζηται. Comp. chap. v. 11. The doxology states the reason of the iva 
δοξάζηται ὁ Θεός (Schott); because God is (ἐστιν) the glory and the power, 
therefore the endeavors of the church should be directed to bring about a 
lively acknowledgment of this, to the praise of God. — Identical with this 
is the doxology, Rev. i. 6 (cf. also Rev. v. 13). 

Ver. 12. Exhortation with reference to the sufferings under persecution. 
ἀγαπητοί]. See chap. ii. 11.— μὴ ξενίζεσθε]. Cf. ver. 4; Nicol. de Lyra 
translates incorrectly: nolite a fide alienari: Luther, correctly: “et it not 
astonish you.” — τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει]. The construction cum dat. occurs also 
in classical Greek; πύρωσις, besides in this passage, to be found only in 
Rev. xviii. 9, 18, where it is equal to incendium. The LXX. translate ΠΣ 
and even 3 by πυρόω; the substantive, Prov. xxvii. 21, is an inexact 
translation of 133 in the sense of “refining furnace;” Oecc., correctly: 
πύρωσιν τὰς θλίψεις εἰπὼν, évéonver ὡς διὰ δοκιμασίαν ἐπάγονται αὐτοὶς αὐταί. The 
word, however, does not in itself contain the reference to purification ; this is 
introduced only in what follows.!— ἐν ὑμῖν]. “ Among, with you;” not equal — 
to “affecting some in your midst” (De Wette), but “ the readers are regarded 
as_a totality, and the wip. as present in the midst of them” (Wiesinger). — 
The definite purpose of the πύρωσις is brought out in the subsequent words: 
πρὸς πειρασμὸν ὑμῖν ywouévy. πειρασμός here means the trial with intent to 
purify (elsewhere it has also the secondary signification of designed 
temptation to sin); ef. chap. i. 7. — ὡς ξένου ὑμῖν συμβαΐνοντος]. ξένου points 
back to μὴ ἐενίζεσθε. Luther: “as though some strange thing happened unto 
you;” i.e., something strange to your destination, unsuited to it.? 

Ver. 13. dada... χαίρετε]. Antithesis to ξενίζεσθε; non tantum mirari 


1 Gualther: ‘‘Confert crucem igni, nos of salvation. This the context in no way jus- 
auro.” tifies. What causes astonishment is rather the 

2 Schott here again supposes that in conse- fact that the church belonging to the glorified 
quence of persecutions the leaders had become Christ is exposed to the obloquy of the 
perplexed as to the moral truth of their state world. 


CHAP. IV. 14. 821 


vetat Petrus, sed gaudere etiam jubet (Calvin); the measure of the joy is 
indicated by καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασι. ---- καθό, not equivalent to 
“that,” nor to quando (Pott), but to quatenus, in quantum: ef. Rom. viii. 26, 
2 Cor. viii. 12. —7ré τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήματα is inexactly interpreted by Vorstius 
as afflictiones Christi membris destinatae, nempe quas pii propler justitiam et 
evangelium Christi sustinent ; they rather mean the sufferings which Christ 
Himself has endured. Of these the believers are partakers (κοινωνοῦσιν 
αὐτοῖς), for the world shows the same enmity to them as to Christ, since it is 
He who is hated in them; ef. my commentary to Col. i. 24, and Meyer to 
2 Cor. i. 5, 7 (so, too, Wiesinger, Weiss, p. 293 f., Schott). Steiger! is 
wrong in thinking of the inward suffering endured by the Christian, whilst, 
by the power of Christ’s death, he dies unto sin. — The object to be supplied 
in thought to yaipere is the πύρωσις previously mentioned by the apostle. — 
iva καὶ States the design of χαίρειν : the Christians are to rejoice now, in 
order that they may also (xai lays stress on the future in relation to the 
present) rejoice ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει, etc.; for this future joy is conditioned by 
that of the present, as the future partaking of the δοξα of Christ by the 


\ Ἂ 
\ 


present sharing of His za#juac.? Schott unreasonably opposes, as “ gram-) -~ Ὁ 


matical pedantry,” the application of iva to the preceding yaipere, for he re- 
marks: “it is the sufferings themselves which hold out to us the future joy.” 
But he omits to consider that the κοινωνεῖν τοῖς τ. Xp, παθ. holds out future 
happiness to him only who finds his joy in it. Schott incorrectly appeals, in 
support of his construction, to John xi. 15.—It is not correct to explain, 
with Gerhard, ete., iva, ἐκβατικῶὼς. ---- ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει, x.7.A,], not “ because of,” 
but “at” (Luther: “at the time of”) the revelation; ef. chap. i. 17. The 
expression ἀποκάλ. τῆς δόξης Χριστοῦ (with which compare Matt. xxv. 31) is to 
be found only here. By it the apostle indicates that he who is now δ᾽ 
partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and rejoices in them (Col. iii. 4), 
will one day be partaker of His glory, and in it rejoice everlastingly. 
ἀγαλλιώμενοι is added to χαρῆτε by way of giving additional force to the idea) 
(chap. i. 8; Matt. v. 12).8 

Ver. 14. In order to strengthen the exhortation: μὴ fevitecde . . . ἀλλὰ 
χαίρετε, Peter adds the assurance: εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε, «.7.4.; cf. chap. ili. 14 and 
Matt. v. 11.— Pott, without any reason, explains εἰ by καίπερ. --- ἐν ὀνόματι 
Χριστοῦ]. +The explanation, propter confessionem Christi (De Wette), is inac- 
curate, for ὄνομα is not confessio; the meaning is the same as that in Mark 
ix. 41: ἐν ὀνόματι, ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστέ, thus: ““ because ye bear the name of Christ, 
and therefore belong to Him.” — Schott: “for the sake of your Christiai? name 
and Christian profession;” Steiger: “as servants of Christ.” — μακάριοι, se. 


1“ The κοινωνεῖν τ. παθ. consists in the diate thought, that participation in the suffer- 


inward fellowship of the sufferings of Christ, 
in the participation in that strength which 
arises from the justifying confidence in their 
value, and which causes us even to die unto 
sin.” 

2 Weiss (p. 291 ff.), while denying that 
Peter has the Pauline idea of community of 
life with Christ, supplements, as an interme- 


ings of Christ is the necessary mark of the true 
disciples. But this is to give a much too super- 
ficial conception of the relation; and could 
Peter have thought it possible to be a disciple 
without community of life? 

8 Quia prius illud (gaudium) cum dolore 
et tristitia mixtum est, secundum cum exsulta- 
tione conjungit ’’ (Calvin). 


ὍΣ Δὲ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


ἐστε. --- ὅτι τὸ τῆς δόξης (καὶ δυνάμεως) καὶ τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πνεῦμα]. δόξα: glory in its 
highest sense, heavenly, divine ρ]ουγ. 2 According to Greek usage, τὸ τῆς δόξης 
may be a circumlocution for 7 déga;? but this form of expression does not 
occur elsewhere in the N. T. (Winer, p. 104 [E. Τὶ, 109]); nor is it easy to 
understand why the apostle should not simply have written ἡ δόξα. Accord- 
ingly, it is preferable to take τό with the subsequent πνεῦμα, and to assume 
an additional πνεῦμα (as is done by the greater number of commentators, De 
Wette, also Brickner, Wiesinger, Schott); the Spirit of glory is, then, the 
same as that which is also the Spirit of God (καὶ τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πν. subjoined 
epexegetically). But in consideration of ὀνειδίζεσθε, He is styled the Spirit 
of δόξα, 1.e., to whom δύξα belongs (Calvin: gui gloriam secum perpetuo con- 
junctam habet; οἷ. Eph. i. 17), and who therefore also bestows it. τὸ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ is added in order to show that this Spirit of δόξα is none other than the 
Spirit of God Himself. It must be allowed, that, on this interpretation, 
there is an inexactness of expression, καί being evidently out of place.2— 
Hofmann proposes, therefore, to supply to τό not πνεῦμα, but ὄνομα, from what 
precedes. But if Peter had had this thought in his mind, he would certainly 
have given definite expression to it; and it is self-evident, too, that on him 
who is reproached ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, as a bearer of it, that name rests. — ἐφ᾽ 
ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται, after Isa. xi. 2, where the same expression is used of the 
πνεῦμα τ. Θεοῦ (in like manner ἐπαναπαύεσθαι, Num. xi. 25; 2 Kings ii. 15, 
LXX.; of εἰρήνη, Luke x. 6). The accus. ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς is to be explained as with 
ἔμεινεν, John i. 832; Wahl: demissus in vos requiescit in vobis; it points to the 
living operation of the Spirit on those upon whom He rests. The thought 
contained in these words gives the reason (ὅτι) of what has been said: not, 
however, the logical reason;4 but the actual reason, that is, inasmuch as 
this resting of the Spirit of δόξα, on those who are reproached ἐν ὀνόμ. Χριστοῦ, 
is a sealing of their eternal δόξα. It is inappropriate to insert, with Calvin, 
a nihilominus, so that the sense would be: in spite of that reproach, the 
Spirit of God still dwells in you; the more so that the reproach of unbe- 
lievers was called forth by the very fact that the life of the Christians was 
determined by the Spirit which rested upon them.—In the’ additional 
clause found in the Rec., and connected with what goes before: κατὰ μὲν 
αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται, κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται, the subject can hardly be πνεῦμα Θεοῦ 
taken from the explanatory clause immediately preceding, but is more prob- 
ably ὄνομα Χριστοῦ from the previous clause, and on which the principal stress 
is laid. Schott wrongly thinks that this addition interrupts the connection 
of thought; but Hofmann is equally in error in holding the opposite opin- 
ion, that it is of necessity demanded by the γάρ, ver. 15; for γάρ may be 
equally well applied to the idea that the Spirit of God rests on those who 


1 Bengel erroneously understands δόξα pro 4 Aretius: ‘crux, quam bonus fert pro 
concreto, and that, ita wt sitappellatio Christi, Christo, indicat, quod Spir. Dei in illo quies- 
adding: ‘‘innuitur, Spiritum Christi eundem cat;*? similarly, too, Hofmann: ‘they should 
esse Spiritum Dei Patris.”’ consider themselves happy that they are re- 

2 Sce Matth., Ausf. Gr. Gram., 2d ed., § 284. proached for bearing the name of Christ; every 

8 Cf. Plato, Rep., viii. 565: περι τὸ ἐν ’Apxa- such reproach reminds them of what, by bear. 
Sia τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἱερόν; cf. Winer, p.125 (\#.7., ing it, they are.” 

132). 


CHAP. IV. 15, 16. 323 


are reproached ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, as to this, that the name of Christ is glori- 
fied καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς. Since the rendering of κατά by “with” (as formerly in this 
commentary), or by “on the part of” (Hofmann), cannot be supported,! the 
meaning “ with regard to” (De Wette) must be maintained. The interpre- 
tation will then be: “by their . . . your conduct,” or “according to their... 
your opinion.” 

Ver. 15. With reference to the assumption contained in what precedes 
— whether expressed in the clause εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε. . . ἀναπαύεται, Or in the 
doubtful adjunct κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται ---- {[Π6 apostle by way of explanation 
adds the following warning: μὴ γάρ τις ὑμῶν πασγέτω ὡς φονεὺς, x.7.4.]. The 
particle γάρ does not here assign a reason, it gives an explanation: “that is 
to say,”? “that is, let none of you suffer as a murderer;” ὡς φονεὺς, i.e., 
because he is.a murderer. The two special conceptions, φονεύς and κλέπτης; 
are followed by the more general κακοποιός, in order that every other kind of 
crime may be therein included. These three conceptions belong very closely 
to each other, for which reason ὡς is not repeated. On the other hand, the 
fourth conception, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, is, by the prefixed ὡς, distinguished from 
the others as entirely independent. Etymologically, this word denotes one 
who assumes to himself an oversight of other people’s affairs with which he 
has nothing to do. The consciousness of a higher dignity could easily 
betray the Christian into such a presumption, which must make him all the 
more odious to strangers. Oecumenius takes the word as equivalent to ὁ τὰ 
ἀλλότρια περιεργαζόμενος ; Calvin, Beza, etc., to alieni cupidus, appetens; Pott, 
to “a disturber of the public peace.” But all these interpretations are not 
in harmony with the etymology of the word. 

Ver. 16. Antithesis to the foregoing. —e de ὡς Χριστιανὸς (86. τὶς πάσχει) 
μὴ αἰσχυνέσθωῆ. The name Χριστιανός, besides here, is to be found only in 
Acts xi. 26, where its origin is mentioned (cf. Meyer, in loc.), and Acts 
xxvi. 28. — ὡς Xp,, i.e., because of his being a Christian, synonymous with 
ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, ver. 14. Calvin: non tam nomen quam causam respicit. — 
μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω : “let him not consider it a disgrace ;” cf. Rom. i. 16; 2 Tim. i. 
8, 12. — δοξαζέτω dé τὸν Θεόν ; cf. Acts v. 41. ---- ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ Goes back to 
πάσχειν ὡς Χριστιανός; De Wette regards it as synonymous with the reading: 
ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, 2 Cor. 111. 10, ix. 3: “in this matter,” “in this respect;” 4 
évoua can, however, be retained in its strict sense (Wiesinger), in which case 
it will mean the name Χριστιανός; ἐν will then designate this name as the 
reason of the δοξάζειν (see Winer, p. 362 [E. T., 387]). Hofmann, who gives 


1 Although Hofmann appeals for this sig- 
nification to chap. iy. 6, still, in interpreting 
that passage, he himself takes κατά in a sense 
other than it is supposed to have here. — Pott 
uses the circumlocution κατὰ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν 
for κατὰ αὐτούς, whilst he explains κατὰ δε 
ὑμᾶς by “quod autem ad vos attinet,” i.e., 
“vestra autem agendi ratione,” although κατά 
must have the same meaning in both clauses. 

2 Calvin: ‘ Particula causalis hic super- 
vacua non est, quum velit Ap, causam reddere, 
cur tantum ad societatem passionum Christi 


hortatus sit fideles et simul per occasionem eos 
monere, ut juste et innoxie vivant, ne justas 
sibi poenas arcessant propria culpa.’ — Eras- 
mus rightly remarks: ‘non enim cruciatus 
martyrem facit, sed causa.”’ 

3 Bengel, Poterat Petr., antitheti vi., dicere: 
honori sibi ducat, sed honorem Deo resig- 
nandum esse docet. 

4 Schott interprets μέρος artificiaily, as 
“that piece of life apportioned to Christians 
which consists in suffering.” 


824 , THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 
the preference to the reading ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, “in this respect,” refers the 
word to what follows, thus attributing to δοξαζέτω an application different 
from that of μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω. When, then, he states that the cause for praise 
arises from this circumstance, that the Christian’s sufferings are appointed 
by God, he is introducing a thought in no way alluded to, and still less ex- 
pressed, by the apostle. 

Ver. 17. The apostle’s exhortation, μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, δοξαζέτω δέ, is based on 
a reference to the judgment which threatens the unbelieving. The connec- 
tion of thought is the same here as in vv. 4 and 5.— Calvin, differently : 
Nam haec necessitas totam Dei ecclesiam manet, ut — Dei manu castigetur: tanto 
agitur aequiori animo ferendae sunt pro Christo persequuliones. But in this, as 
in the following verse, the chief stress is laid not so much on the first as on 
the second half. It is purely arbitrary for Pott to assert that ὅτι is super- 
fluous. — ὅτι ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασσαι τὸ κρίμα]. Luther’s translation, “it is time,” 
is inexact. The article before καιρός must not be overlooked; thus, “for it 
is the time of the beginning of the judgment, that is, in which the judgment is be- 
ginning ;” ἐστί is to be supplied; the genitive is directly dependent on ὁ καιρός 
(cf. Luke i. 57), and not “on καιρός taken out of the subject, ὁ καιρός ᾿ (Hof- 
mann). By κριμα is to be understood the definite judgment (τό), that is, the 
final judgment, which Peter, however, here thinks of, not in its last decisive 
act, but in its gradual development. It begins with the Christians (Matt. 
xxiv. 9 ff.) in the refining fire of affliction, ver. 12, and is completed in the 
sentence of condemnation pronounced on the unbelieving world at the ad- 
vent of Christ. In opposition to the apostle’s manner of expressing himself, 
Hofmann maintains that reference is here made on/y to the judgment of the 
unbelieving world, the beginning of which Peter recognized in the fact that 
God permitted it to persecute the Christians, to do unto them that which 
makes itself ripe for judgment (!). — ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοὺ Θεοῦ]. ἀπό is here preg- 
nant: the judgment takes place first in the οἷκ. τοῦ Θεοῦ : thence it proceeds 
further on; with the construction ἄρχεσθαι ἀπό, cf. Acts 1. 22, viii. 35, x. 37.1 
—oixoc τοῦ Θεοῦ is the church of believers; 1 Tim. 111. 15 (chap. ii. 5, οἰκος 
πνευματικός. ---- εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν]. By these words the apostle passes over 
to the chief thought of the verse. Either τὸ κρίμα ἄρχεται may be supplied, 
and πρῶτον regarded as a pleonasm intensifying the idea ἄρχεται; or it may 
be assumed with De Wette, that the expression arose from a mingling of 
the two thoughts, εἰ de ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν τὸ κρίμα ἄρχεται and εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἡμεῖς κρινόμεθα. 
The first is more probable; πρῶτον presented itself to the apostle, because 
he wished to lay stress on the fact that the Christians had to suffer only 
the beginning of the judgment, not its close.2— aq’ ἡμῶν corresponds with the 
preceding οἱκ. τ᾿ Θεοῦ. The sense is: If God does not exempt us, the mem- 
bers of His house (His family), from judgment, but permits it to take its 


1 Schott thinks that Peter really intended 
to write: ‘* for the time is come that the judg- 
ment of the world must begin, but its begin- 
ning must be at the house of God.’”? But why 
then did Peter not write as he intended? 
Schott introduces an idea into the second 


clause which Peter has in no way expressed. 
- » 


2 Schott’s interpretation, that πρῶτον should 
be taken as a substantive (equal to ‘‘a first’’), 
and that a general verb, expressive of what 
takes place, should be supplied out of ἄρξασθαι 
(ἀπό being at the same time zeugmatically 
repeated), contradicts itself by its artificial- 
ness. 


CHAP. IV. 18, 19. S20 


beginning at us, how should the unbelievers be exempted ? (cf. Luke 
xxiii. 31.) — τί τὸ τέλος τῶν, K.7.A., 86. ἔσται, ---- τὸ τέλος, not “the reward,” but 
the final term, the end, to which the ἀπειθοῦντες τῷ εὐαγγ. (i.e., those who in 
hostility oppose the gospel of God) are going. Schott explains τὸ τέλος (anti- 
thetically to πρῶτον) as the final judgment itself, and the genitive τῶν ἀπει- 
θούντων as a concise, nearer definition (“the part of the judgment which falls 
to the lot of the unbelievers”). But as little as πρῶτον means mitiatory 
judgment, so little does τὸ τέλος final judgment. — On the interrogative form 
of the clause, Gerhard rightly remarks: exaggeratio est in inlerrogatione ; cf. 
Luke xxiii. 91. The echo! in this verse of passages of the Old Testament, 
like Jer. xxv. 29, xlix. 12, Ezek. ix. 6, can the less fail to be recognized, 
that the words which follow are borrowed from the Old Testament. 

Ver. 18. Strengthening of the foregoing thought by quotation of the 
O. 'T. passage, Prov. xi. 31, after the LX X., whose translation, however, is 
inexact (cf. Delitzsch, in loc.).— ὁ δίκαιος “is he who stands in a right rela- 
tion to God” (Schott), that is, the believer who belongs to the οἱκ, τ, Θεοῦ: 
ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλός, the unbeliever (ὁ ἀπειθῶν τῷ τ. O. ebayy.). μόλις σώζεται is 
not, with Gerhard, to be referred to the fact that for the pious non nisi per 
multas tribulationes ingressus in regnum coeleste pateal, but that it is difficult 
(μόλις, scarcely, with great difficulty) to stand in the judgment (ver. 17), and 
to attain owrnpia. — ποῦ φανεῖται, “ where will he appear?” that is, he will not 
stand, but will be annihilated. The same thought as in Ps. i. 5. 

Ver. 19. The exhortation contained in this verse is closely connected 
with vv. 17 and 18, in such a way, however, “that it brings to a close the 
whole section which treats of suffering for the sake of Christ” (Hofmann) ; 
Hornejus : clausula est qua totam exhortationem obsignat. — ὥστε, as in Rom. 
vii. 4, and often elsewhere, with a finite verb followimg (Winer, p. 282 f. 
[E. T., 301]) “therefore.” — καί does not belong to οἱ πάσχοντες, equivalent to 
“those also who suffer,” with reference to those who do not suffer (Wie- 
singer, Hofmann), for there is no allusion in the context to any distinction 
between those who suffer because of their Christian profession and those 
who have not so to suffer,? but it is united with Gore, and applies to the 
verb, “and just for this reason” (cf. Winer, p. 408 [E. T., 438]). Incorrectly, 
Bengel: καί concessive cum parlicipio i. q. εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε. --- οἱ πάσχοντες, namely, 
the believers. — κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοὺ Θεοῦ ; that is, πρὸς πειρασμόν, ver. 12. Wie- 
singer: “looking back to ver. 17, inasmuch as they as Christians are over- 
taken by the judgment God pronounces on His house.” Besser incorrectly 
takes it as referring to their subjective behavior under suffering. — ὡς πιστῷ 
κτιστῇ παρατιθέσθωσαν, κ.τ.Δ.1. Gerhard: ὡς exprimit causam, propter quam, hi 
qui patiuntur animas suas apud Deum deponere debeant, nimirum quia est earum 
creator et fidelis custos. If ὡς be the correct reading, then from the foregoing 
τοῦ Θεοῦ an αὐτῷ must be supplied, to which ὡς πιστῷ κτιστῇ applies. — κτιστῆς 
is not possessor (Calvin), but the creator; ὁ κτίσας, Rom. i. 25. It is used 


1 Calvin: ‘‘ Hance sententiam ex trita et per- 2 Schott explains καί by the contrast be- 
petua Scripturae doctrina sumpsit Petrus; tween ‘‘the individual sufferers’? and ‘the 
idque mihi probabilius est, quam quod alii church;”’? but nothing in the context alludes 
putant, certum aliquem locum notari.”’ to this. 


826 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


here in its strict sense, and not with reference to the new creation (Steiger, 
Schott, connect both together); cf. Acts iv. 24 ff.: “this prayer is an actual 
example of what is here demanded” (Weiss, p. 190). In the N. T. κτίστης 
is ἅπ. Aey., in the O. T. it occurs frequently; Jud. ix. 12; 2 Mace. i. 24. 
πιστός : Oecumenius, equivalent to, ἀσφαλὴς καὶ ἀψευδὴς κατὰ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας αὑτοῦ, 
καὶ οὐκ ἐάσει ἡμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δυνάμεθα; οἷ. 1 Cor. x. 198. --- With παρατίθεσθαι, 
cf. Acts xiv. 23, xx. 32: “to commit to the protection of any one.” --- ἐν ἀγαθο- 
ποιΐᾳ]. dyaboroiia, ἅπ. Aey.; the adjec., chap. ii. 14. This addition shows that 
the confident surrender to God is to be joined, not with careless indolence, 
but with the active practice of good. Oecumenius erroneously paraphrases 
the word by ταπεινοφροσύνη: 


CHAP. Υ. 327 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 1. A, B, several min., read οὖν after πρεσβυτέρους (Lachm.); K, L, P, 
etc., Copt., Thph., ete., on the other hand, τούς (Rec., Tisch. 7); δὲ has both, 
i.e., οὖν τούς. This reading, accepted by Tisch. 8, is perhaps the original one; 
ovv may have been omitted, because the subsequent exhortation does not appear 
to be a conclusion from what goes before. — Ver. 2. ἐπισκοποῦντες is wanting 
only in B, &, 27, 29, Hier., etc.; it is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 7, and 
omitted by Tisch. 8. — After ἑκουσίως, A, P, 8, several min., vss., etc., Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8 have: κατὰ Θεόν, The words are wanting in the Rec. after B, K, 
L, ete., Oec., etc.; Tisch. 7 had omitted them; they are probably a later addi- 
tion, in order to complete the idea. — μηδὲ aicypoxepdac]. Ree., after B, K, P, x, 
ete., Vulg., Copt., Thph., Beda (Lachm., Tisch. 8); Tisch. 7 reads, instead of 
μηδέ, un, after A, L, 68, al., Syr., etc., Oec.; this, however, appears to be a mere 
alteration on account of the preceding “7 and the subsequent uydé. — Ver. 3. 
Following B, Buttmann has omitted the entire third verse; but as all authori- 
ties retain it, it cannot be regarded as spurious. — Ver. 5. ὑποτασσόμενο. Rec., 
according to K, L, P, ete., Thph., Oec.; is omitted in A, B, δὲ, 13, etc., several 
vss., ete. Lachm. and Tisch. are probably right in omitting it, as it appears to 
be a correction introduced in order to make the sense plainer, perhaps after 
Eph. v. 21. Wiesinger and Schott are against the Rec.; Reiche is in favor of it. 
— Instead of ὁ Θεός, Buttm. has, following B, adopted Θεός (without article). — 
Ver. 6. ἐν καιρῷ]. In A, and the most of the vss., ἐπισκοπῆς follows here; 
adopted by Lachm., erroneously, however, as it is a later addition after chap. 
ii. 12.— Ver. 8. Following the most numerous and best authorities, Griesb. 
already has justly erased the ὅτι of the Rec. before ὁ ἀντίδικος. ---- τίνα καταπίῃ]. 
Rec., after A, al., Vulg., Syr., Cyr., etc. (Tisch. 7); in its place K, L, P, x, al., 
mult., Cop., etc., read τινὰ καταπιεῖν (Lachm.: τινά; Tisch. 8: τίνα); B has the 
inf. only, without τίνα, The commentators (as also Reiche) prefer the Rec.; it 
appears, too, to be the more natural reading; but that very fact makes it sus- 
picious. The reading of B is evidently a correction, as τίνα seems to be inap- 
propriate. — Ver. 9. B, 8, have the art. τῷ before κόσμῳ (Tisch. 8); in the Rec. 
it is omitted, after A, K, L, P, ete. (Tisch. 7). — Ver..10. ἡμᾶς]. Rec., accord- 
ing to K, several min., Vulg., Syr., etc.; in place of it, the most important 
authorities, A, B, L, P, 8, very many min., and several vss., support ὑμᾶς, which 
is accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., and rightly declared to be genuine by De 
Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche. The Codd., A, K, L, P, have the name Ἰησοῦ 
after Χριστῷ (Rec., Lachm., Tisch. 7); in B, δὲ, there is only Χριστῷ (Tisch. 8). 
The Rec. runs: καταρτίσαι ὑμᾶς, στήρίξαι, obevwoat, θεμελιῶσαι. Although these 
optatives convey an appropriate idea, still there is too little evidence for their 
genuineness; in the three last verbs, the optative occurs only in min., several 
vss., Thph., and Oec.; in the first verb it is found also in Καὶ, L, P. As, how- 


828 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


ever, the future καταρτίσει, etc., occurs in almost all authorities, it is to be pre- 
ferred. Erasmus reads καταρτίσαι, and then στερίξει, In similar passages of the 
N. T., the optat. is mostly used (thus, undisputedly, in Rom. xv. 13; Heb. xiii. 
21; 1 Thess. ν. 23, etc.), and this explains how, in employing the future, a 
change could have been made to the optative; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 10; Phil. iv. 19. 
There is less force in the reason given for the use of the indicative, viz., that it 
is better suited to the subsequent doxology (Bengel), in opposition to which De 
Wette rightly refers to Heb. xiii. 21.— The pronoun ὑμᾶς is wanting in the A, 
Β, &, etc., and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.; its genuineness is at least 
doubtful; not less so is that of θεμελίωσει, which, however, Tisch. has retained, 
following K, L, P, 8, etc., whilst it is omitted in A, B, Vulg., etc. (Lachm.). 
—Ver. 11. ἡ δύξα καί does not occur in A, B, 28, Aeth., Vulg.; omitted by 
Lachm. and Tisch.; perhaps a later addition, after chap. iv. 11. --- τῶν αἰώνων is 
erased by Tisch. 7, after B, 36, 99, Copt., Arm., but retained by Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8, who follow A, K, L, P, δὰ, the majority of min., several vss., etc. — 
Ver. 12. Lachm. omits the article tod before πιστοῦ, appealing to B. Tisch., 
however, remarks on this: errabat circa B. The omission, for which certainly 
there is too little warrant, may be explained by the transcriber having construed 
ὑμῖν with πιστοῦ. According to Tisch., however, it is not certain whether B has 
the article or not; according to Buttm., it does not occur in B. — Instead of ἑστῆ- 
κατε (Rec.), Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after A, B, δὲ, many min., etc., read στῆτε, This 
reading would seem to be favored by the fact that it is the more difficult one, 
and that the Rec. may have arisen out of Rom. v. 2; but the idea itself decides 
in favor of ἑστήκατε, which is retained by Tisch. 7, following K, L, P, etc., 
Theoph., Oec. — The reading ἐν 7j (instead of εἰς ἢν) in A is evidently a correc- 
tion for the sake of simplicity. — Ver. 14. Instead of Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοὺ (in Rec., K, 
L, P, 8, al., pler., Vulg., Copt., etc., Thph., Oec.), Lachm. and Tisch. have 
adopted Χριστῷ only (A, B, ete., Syr., Aeth., ete.). The final ἀμήν (Rec., in G, 
K, &, ete.) is likewise wanting in A, B, etc., and is therefore omitted by Lachin. 
and Tisch. — The subsequent addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ and ἀμῆν is undoubtedly more 
easy of explanation than the subsequent omission of it. 
* 


Ver. 1. New exhortations in the first place to the πρεσϑύτεροι and the 
νεώτεροι aS far as ver. 5; then to all, without distinction, vv. 5-9. — πρεσβυ- 
τέρους οὖν τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ]. πρεσβύτεροι are the presidents of the congre- 
gations. The name is employed here probably not without reference to age 
(“the elders”) (see ver. 5), though this is disputed by Hofmann, who, how- 
ever, fails to give any reason for so doing. The article is wanting “ because 
πρεσβ. is considered as definite of itself” (Wiesinger), and not “ because Peter 
had not a more accurate knowledge of the constitution of the churches” 
(Schott). If the reading oiv be adopted, these and the following exhorta- 
tions connect themselves, as conclusions drawn from it, with the preceding 
conception ἀγαθοποιία, for the passages 1 Thess. iv. 1 and Matt. vii. 15 do not 
prove that οὖν expresses “only the continuance of the exhortation” (Hof- 
mann). The reading ἐν ὑμῖν, without τούς, is opposed by the want of the 
article before πρεσβυτέρους. --- ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ, κ.τ.Δ.]. Peter adds these 
designations of himself, in order thus to give the more weight to his παρα- 
καλεῖν. He calls himself συμπρεσβύτερος because of his office. What the 
elders were for the individual congregations, that were the apostles for the 


CHAP. V. 2. 329 


whole church, since they had the superintendence of the entire system of 
congregations.!_ By this name Peter, in humble love,? places himself on an 
equal footing with the elders proper.*? It is less natural to assume, with 
Hofmann, that in thus speaking of himself Peter “would emphasize the 
share he had in responsibility for the weal and woe of the congregations.” 
—kal μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων]. By τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήματα must not 
be understood the sufferings which the apostle had to undergo in following 
Christ, but those which Christ Himself endured; cf. chap. iv. 13. Yet 
Peter calls himself a μάρτυς, not only because he was an eye-witness of them 
(cf. Acts x. 39),4 but also because he proclaimed those sufferings which he 
himself had seen ὃ (cf. Acts i. 8, 22, xiii. 31). This he did, in the first place, 
by his words, but at the same time also by his sufferings (a fact which Hof- 
mann should not have denied), in which he was a κοινωνὸς τῶν τοῦ Xp. παθημάτων 
(chap. iv. 13) (Wiesinger, Schott). What follows seems also to refer to 
this. — De Wette thinks that whilst by “ συμπρεσβ ,” Peter puts himself on 
an equality with the elders, he by the second designation places himself 
above them. But if this had been his intention, he would hardly have 
included both under the one article; the elders, too, were equally called 
to be μάρτυρες τῶν Xp, xaé., although Peter, as an eye-witness, occupied “a 
special position” (Briickner). —6 καὶ τῆς μελλουσης . . . κοινωνός]. Several 
of the older commentators incorrectly supply τοὺ Χριστοῦ to δόξης, it is not 
merely the glory of Christ which is meant, but the δόξα, which, at the reve- 
lation of that glory, shall be revealed in all those who are His; cf. Rom. 
vili. 18; Col. iii. 4; 1 John iii 2.— κοίνωνος means simply the participation 
in that glory. Although it is not equivalent to συγκοινωνός (Phil. i. 7), still 
the apostle has in his soul the consciousness of being a fellow-sharer with 
those ‘to whom he is speaking. — The particle καὶ, “also,” unites the two 
ideas: μαρτὺς τῶν. .΄. παθημάτων and κοινωνὸς τῆς. . . δύξης together; because 
the apostle is the former, he will also be the latter. Yet this does not com- 
pel the adoption, with Hofmann, of the reading 6 (equal to δι᾽ ὃ, “ where- 
fore”) instead of 6, Although μάρτυς, which is closely connected with 
συμπρεσϑὺύτερος, has no article, it does not follow that xomwwvoc can have none 
either. The N. T. usage is opposed to the interpretation of ὃ by δι᾽ 4, 
Gal. ii. 10; cf. Meyer, in loc. ; cf. also Winer, p. 135 (E. T, 142). 

Ver. 2. ποιωάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ]. The work of directing the 
church is often in the N. and O. T. represented by the figure of pasturing 
(cf. Acts xx. 28; John xxi. 16; Jer. xxiii. 1-4; Ezek. xxxiv. 2 ff.), and 
the church by that of a flock (Luke xii. 32). τοῦ Θεοὺ is added here very 
significantly. By it the flock is designated as belonging, not to the elders 


1 Hofmann: ‘‘ The apostles were the over- 
seers of the universal church of Christ; each of 
them, therefore, in so far shared in the admin- 
istration of all the single congregations, inas- 
much as these were in the universal church.” 

2 Gualter: “nota humilitatem Petri qui 
minime jus primatus in se cognovit.”’ 

8 Bengel: “‘hortatio mutua inter aequales 
et collegas imprimis valet.” 


4 Aretius: ‘‘oculatus testis, qui praecipuis 
ejus aerumnis interfui.” 

5 It cannot be denied, that, in accordance 
with its almost uniform usage in the N. T., the 
word μαρτὺς possesses this secondary meaning 
(as opposed to Hofmann). 

6 Wiesinger: ‘The antithesis ὁ καὶ τῆς 
μελλ. ἀποκ. δόξης κοινωνός presupposes the 
κοινωνεῖν τοῖς T. Xp. παθ.᾽" 


990 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 
who tend it, but to God as His peculiar property. Luther takes a too nar- 
row view of the idea of tending; he limits it to the preaching of the gospel. 
It applies rather to all and every thing that is done by the elders, for the 
welfare of the individual as well as for that of the entire congregation. τὸ 
ἐν ὑμῖν must not be separated from ποίμνιον, as if it were equal to quantum in 
vobis est (cf. Rom. i. 15), 1.6.5) intendite omnes nervos (Calvin); it rather forms 
one idea with ποίμνιον. The greater number of commentators understand ἐν 
in a local sense, either in vestris regionibus (Pott), or “ with you, within your 
reach” (Luther in the commentary, Hensler, De Wette, Besser, Schott,} 
etc.). Since ἐν ὑμῖν, as a more precise local definition, stands somewhat 
significantly, and “the churches only are the place where the elders are, and 
not vice versa” (Hofmann), ἐν ὑμῖν must, according to the analogy of κεῖσθαι 
ἔν τινι, be interpreted “that which is committed to you” (Luther's translation, 
Bengel, Steiger), or “that which is placed under your care (hand).” ἐν ὑμῖν 
then serves to give point to the exhortation. — ἐπισκοποῦντες, οἷ. the critical 
notes. It must be observed, that ἐπισκοπ. is here placed in conjunction with 
ποιμανατε, AS in chap. 11. 25: ποιμήν and ἐπίσκοπος. This participle, with the 
adverbs belonging to it, states what should be the character of the ποιμαίνειν.3 
The verb (which, except here, occurs only in Heb. xii. 15), equivalent to 
“to give heed,” denotes the labors of the elders in caring for the congrega- 
tion, but with the implied meaning of oversight. The still closer definition 
follows in three adjuncts, each of which consists of a negative and a positive 
member.’ — ἀναγκαστῶς (an expression foreign to Greek usage, and occurring 
only here, which Hofmann erroneously denies) and ἑκουσίως (this adverb 
occurs in the N. T., besides in this passage, only in Heb. x. 26; the adjec- 
tive in Philem 14) are opposed to each other, in such a way that the former 
characterizes the work as undertaken from outward motives only, the latter 
as from inward The same antithesis occurs in Philem. 14: κατὰ ἀνάγκην 
. . κατὰ éxovotov (similarly the antithesis of ἄκων and ἑκών, 1 Cor. ix. 17); 
with ἑκουσίως, cf. Exod xxxvi.2. The position, etc., must be regarded as 
the outwardly inciting or compelling motive.t— According to the Ree., 
exovoiwc is yet further strengthened by κατὰ Θεόν (cf. chap. iv. 6; 2 Cor. vii. 
9, 10), equal to κατὰ τὸ θελημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. --- αἰσχροκερδῶς (the adverb occurs here 
only, the adjective 1 Tim iii. 8; Tit. i. 7; Tit. 1. 11: αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν) ; 
“the apostle places the impure motive side by side with the unwillingness 


1 Schott’s opinion, that in ἐν ὑμῖν this an- 
tithesis to τοῦ Θεοῦ is expressed, ‘‘that the 
church, belonging to heaven, 1s yet at present 
in the bodily and visible vicinity of the elders, 
and surrounded by them,”’ must be rejected as 
purely arbitrary.—Gerhard’s interpretation: 
‘qui vobiscum est, videlicet cum quo unum 
corpus, una ecclesia estis,”’ brings out an idea 
which is in no way indicated by the apostle. 

2 Tt is doubtless correct that the adverbs do 
not simply define more nearly the term ἐπισ- 
κοποῦντες, in and for itself considered, but it is 
wrong to make them co-ordinate with this idea 
(as against Hofmann); closely joined with 


ἐπισκοποῦντες, they, with this participle, are 
connected with ποιμάνετε. 

3 The thought is aptly given by Calvin: 
“Τὴ Pastores ad officium hortari vult, tria 
potissimum vitia notat, quae plurimum obesse 
solent, pigritiam scilicet, lucri captandi cupidi- 
tatem et licentiam dominandi; primo vitio 
opponit alacritatem aut voluntarium studium, 
secundo liberalem affectum tertio modera- 
tionem ac modestiam.” 

4 Bengel is incorrect: ‘‘id valet et in sus- 
cipiendo et in gerendo munere;” to the former 
there is in this case no allusion. 


CHAP. V. 3, 4. 991 
of avayx.” (Wiesinger). — προθύμως (in the N. T. the adverb occurs here only; 
more frequently the adjective and substantive) as antithesis to αἰσχροκερδῶς : 
“out of love to the thing ilself;’’ Luther: “from the bottom of the heart.” Ὁ 

Ver. 3. nd ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων, i.e., “not as those, who,” etc. 
With κατακυρ. cf. for meaning and expression Matt. xx. 25-28; 2 Cor. i. 24; 
it is not equal to κυριεύειν (Steiger), but the prefixed xara intensifies the idea 
of κυριεύειν :. “to exercise a sway, by which violence is offered to those who 
are under it.” ?— κλῆρος, properly speaking, the lot, then that which is appor- 
tioned by lot, then, generally, that which is allotted or assigned to any one, 
whether it be an office, a possession, or any thing else. Here it is the con- 
gregation (τὸ ποίμνιον) that is to be understood ; not as though κλῆρος in itself 
meant the congregation, but the churches are thus designated, because they 
are assigned to the elders as a possession, in which to exercise their official 
duties. The plural is put, because different elders filled offices in different 
congregations (Calov, Steiger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). Com- 
pare the passage in Acts xvii. 4, where it is said of those converted by Paul 
and Silas, προσεκληρώθησαν τῷ Παυλῳ καὶ τῷ Sida. It is incorrect to supply τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, as is done by Beza, etc., and to derive the expression from the O. T., 
where the congregation of Israel is termed the κλῆρος (τ) of God, Deut. 
ix. 29, LXX. But it is equally incorrect when Hofmann applies κατακυριεύ- 
ovrec, not to the πρεσβύτεροι, but to others, and, taking ὡς as instituting a com- 
parison, understands κλῆροι to signify “the estates belonging to some one 
himself,” translating accordingly: “not as those who exercise rule over 
estates belonging to themselves ” The apostle’s idea thus would be, “the 
elders are not to treat the church as an object over which they exercise right 
of possession, and do with as they please.” — How should the apostle have 
thought of bringing forward a comparison so far fetched ? —and_ how arbi- 
trary it appears to interpret dc differently in this passage from in chap. i. 14, 
ii. 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, ete. , to allow the article τῶν to take the place of the pos- 
sessive pronoun, and to attribute a meaning to κλῆροι which it often has in 
profane Greek, but never either in the O. or in the N. T.!8 ἀλλὰ τύποι γινό- 
μενοι τοῦ ποιμνίου]. The antithesis here is a different one from that in the 
passage quoted from Matt. The elders, as the leaders of the church, neces- 
sarily possess a kind of κυρίοτης over it; but they are not to exercise this in 
a manner opposed to the character of Christian life in the church (which 
would be a κατακυριεύειν), but by being examples to the congregations, shin- 
ing before them in every Christian virtue (1 Tim. iv. 12; Tit. ii. 7); cf. 
2 Thess. iii. 9; Phil. iii. 17. 

Ver. 4. Assurance of the future reward for the faithful fulfilment of 
the exhortation just given. —x«ai simply connects the result with the 


1 Hofmann: ‘ With a joyous devotion, 3 The opinion of Oecumenius: κλῆρον τὸ 


which excludes all secondary considerations, 
to the work which has to be done.” 

2 Thus Hofmann interprets, correctly. He 
is mistaken, however, in maintaining that κατα 
here does not imply an hostile antithesis, since 
a violent rule is one by which he who is ruled 
over is injured in his rights. 


ἱερὸν σύστημα καλεῖ, ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν ἡμεῖς (i.e., 
the priesthood), which many Catholic com- 
mentators have followed, requires no refuta- 
tion; and as little does that of Dodwell, 
who understands κλῆροι to mean church 
property. 


Soe THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


exhortation (cf. Winer, p. 406 [E. T., 436 f.]), and is not to be taken 
αἰτιολογικῶς for iva. — φανερωθέντος τοῦ ἀρχιποιμένος]. With gavep. cf. Col. iii. 4; 
1 John ii. 28; Christ is here termed ἀρχιποιμῆν (am. Aey., chap. ii. 25: ὁ ποιμήν; 
Heb. xiii. 20: ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ μεγάς) as He “to whom the elders, with the flock 
they tend, are subject” (Hofmann). —xoweiobe (cf. chap. i. 9) τὸν ἀμαράντινον 
τῆς δόξης στέφανον]. The greater number of commentators consider ἀμαράντινος 
as equal to dudpavtoc in chap. i. 4; but the direct derivation of the word 
from μαραίνεσθαι is hardly to be justified. It comes rather from the 
substantive dudpavroc, and therefore means, as Beza explains: ez amaranio 
videlicet, cujus floris (inquit Plinius) swnma natura in nomine est, sic appellato 
quoniam non marcescit. Accordingly the figure present to the mind of the 
apostle was an amaranthine wreath; thus also Schott.1 It is at least 
uncertain whether στέφανος here (as frequently in the writings of Paul) is 
thought of as a wreath of victory (thus the greater number of commentators), 
since among the Jews, also, wreaths of flowers and leaves were in use as 
tokens of honor and rejoicing (cf. Winer’s Bibl. Realworterbuch, s.v. Kvanze). 
— τῆς δόξης is the genitive of apposition; cf. 2 Tim. iv. 8; Jas. 1. 12, Rev. 
ii. 10: the δόξα is the unfading crown which they shall obtain. 

Ver. 5. ὁμοίως; ef. chap. 111. 1, 7; here also ὁμοίως is not a mere particle 
of transition (Pott). The exhortation to humility expressed in this verse 
corresponds to those addressed to the elders, wherein they are admonished 
to submit themselves to the duties of their office with humility, and without 
seeking their own advantage. —vedrepa ὑποτάγητε πρεσβυτέροις]. Who are 
these νεώτεροι ὃ Certainly not the whole of the members of the congregation 
(in contrast to the elders), as Beda, Estius, Pott, Wiesinger, etc., assume, 
but neither the younger members generally, nor such of them as were 
employed in many ministrations suitable neither for the elders nor the 
deacons. The first assumption (Luther, Calvin, Aretius, Gerhard, etc.) is 
opposed by the circumstance that πρεσβυτέροις here seems to have the same 
official signification as above in ver. 1 ff. If this be so, then it is plainly 
inconsistent to take the expression νεώτεροι as specifying only a particular 
time of life. The second (Weiss, p. 344 ff., Schott, Briickner), founded 
chiefly on Acts v. 6, 10, is contradicted by the fact that there is no historical 
testimony for the existence of an office such as it takes for granted. If 
νεώτεροι indicate only a particular time of life, then the like may be said of 
the accompanying πρεσβυτέροις. The difficulty which arises from the same 
name being employed first as an official title, and then to denote a particular 
age, is solved, in a measure at least, by supposing, that, since the werd 
contained both references, the apostle might, as he proceeded in his 
exhortation, lose sight of the one in the other.?_ The special exhortation 
is followed by the general: πάντες δὲ ἀλλήλοις]. If ὑποτασσόμενοι is to be 


1 Perhaps, however, Hofmann may be right office, but νεώτεροι a time of life (De Wette), 
when he supposes that ἀμαράντινος stands in is opposed by the circumstance that ‘‘it re- 
the same relation to audpavtos as ἀληθινός to mains incomprehensible why the exhortation, 
ἀληθής and ὑγιεινός te ὑγιής, and that accord- which is surely meant to apply te the whole 
ingly the word should be written ἀμαραντινός. church, should be addressed to the younger 

2 The view that πρεσβυτέροις indicates an members only ” (Hofmann). 


CHAP. V. 6. 833 


erased after ἀλλήλοις, the words may then be taken either with what precedes 
(Lach., Gr. Ausg., Buttmann, Hofmann) or with what follows. In the first 
ease, there is something fragmentary in the structure of the clause, while 
the second, adopted by almost all commentators (formerly also in this 
commentary), is opposed by the dative ἀλλήλοις, which is too easily passed 
over with the remark that it is the dative of reference, equivalent to “for 
each other,” or “‘ with reference to each other.” All the passages which 
Winer (p. 202 [E. T., 215]) brings forward to prove that the dative is used 
of every thing with reference to which any thing takes place are of a differ- 
ent nature. πάντες denotes the whole of the members of the church, without 
distinction. — τὴν ταπεινοφροσύνην ἐγκομβώσασθε]. In interpreting the word 
ἐγκομβώσασθε, commentators have not unfrequently, but erroneously, started 
from the meaning of the substantive ἐγκόμβωμα, understanding (certainly 
without justification) it to signify “a beautiful dress,” and rendering: 
“adorn yourselves with humility ;” thus Calvin, etc.; or else, whilst 
correctly explaining the word as the apron worn by slaves, they find in 
the verb itself the reference to humility in behavior; thus Grotius, 
Hornejus, Steiger, De Wette, etc.2— Rather, however, must that sense 
of the verb be retained which is to be had by deriving it from κόμβος, “ a. 
band ;” to tie on, or fasten any thing by means of a κομβυς, i e., “a band.” 
Since, now, it is used for the most part of the fastening of a garment, it lies 
to hand to take the expression here as having the same sense with ἐνδύεσθαι 
(cf. Col. iii. 12), yet so that the idea of making fast is more strongly brought 
out in the former than in the latter : “to clothe one’s self firmly, wrap one’s self 
round with razewogp.;” Bengel: induite vos et involvite, ut amictus humilitatis 
nulla vi vobis detrahi possit (thus also Wiesinger, Schott). Other interpreters 
hold by the one or the other meaning only, i.e., either by that of clothing 
(Oecumenius: ἐνειλήσασθε καὶ περιϑάλλεσθε), or that of making fast (Luther : 
“hold fast by humility ;” Erasmus: humilitatem vobis fixam habete). Similar 
exhortations to humility towards one another: Eph. iv. 2; Phil. il. 3; 
Rom. xii. 16. The exhortation is strengthened by the quotation of the Old- 
Testament passage, Prov. iii. 34, after the LXX., where, however, κύριος 
stands instead of ὁ Θεός. The same quotation is to be found in Jas. iv. 6, 
where, as here, there is first of all the injunction to submit to God, and then 
that to resist the devil; ef. also Luke i. 51. 

Ver. 6. Conclusion drawn from the Old-Testament passage, ταπεινώθητε 
οὗν ὑπὸ, x.7.A,], see Jas. iv. 6; not “become humble,” as Wiesinger interprets, 
on account of the passive (for if the meaning must be passive, in accordance 
with the form, it ought to be, “be made humble”), but, in a middle sense, 


1 Steph., s. Ὁ. éykouBow: illigo, involvo; from that of the substantive). He says that 


Hesych : enim ἐγκομβωθείς exponit δεθείς et 
ἐγκεκόμβωται affert pro ἐνείληται. ---ο᾿ Ἐγκόμ- 
βωμα vestimenti genus est; scribit enim Poll. 
4,119, τῇ δὲ τῶν δούλων ἐξωμίδι προσκεῖσθαι 
καὶ ἱματίδιόν τι λευκόν, quod ἐγκόμβωμα Β. 
ἐπίβλημα nominari. 

2 Hofmann holds by this reference (although 
he does not derive the meaning of the verb 


the verb of itself has that sense, since he who 
prepared himself for the duties of a servant 
girded himself with a garment fastened by 
means of a band. This conclusion would be 
established if ἐγκομβοῦν were used only of the 
putting on of a slaye’s apron, which, however, 
is not the case. 


834 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


“humble yourselves.” Ver. 7 shows that this self-humbling here refers to the 
lowly and submissive bearing of afflictions (otherwise in Luke xiv. 11). — 
τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα]. Old-Testament expression denoting the power of God 
which rules and judges all; cf. Deut. iii. 24, LXX.; it does not refer here 
to the laying-on of afflictions only (De Wette), but to the being exalted 
out of them (so, too, Briickner); ef. Luke i. 51: ἐποίησε κράτος ἐν βραλίονι 
αὐτοὺ " διεσκόρπισεν ὑπερηφάνους. . . καὶ ὕψωσε ταπεινούς. The purpose of this 
subordination, iva ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ, is the glory which follows upon the sufferings ; 
iva is not put ἐκβατικῶς (Pott), but τελικῶς. ---- ἐν καιρῷῃ!. Matt. xxiv. 45: | 
“tempore statuto;” Erasmus: ut vos extollat, cum erit opportunum, cum 
judicabit id vobis expedire vel in hoc saeculo, vel in die judicii ; this last is 
here the principal point of view. ; 

Ver:.7 is closely connected with ver. 6; hence the participle. The idea 
and expression are taken from Ps. lv. 22, LXX. (ἐπίῤῥιψον ἐπὶ κύριον τὴν 
μέριμναν cov καὶ αὐτός σε διαθρέψει), although somewhat altered; πᾶσαν τὴν 
μέριμναν ὑμῶν :3} “your whole care;"’ the singular unites all individual cares 
together into one uniform whole. Hofmann, without reason, assumes, that, 
in this passage, μέριμνα does not mean care itself, but the object which causes 
care. The context shows that the care specially meant here is that which is 
occasioned by the sufferings; cf. Matt. vi. 25; Phil. iv. 6. — ὅτι αὐτῷ, κ.τ.1. 1, 
« for He careth for you;” the same construction of the verb with περί occurs 
frequently in the O.T.,e.g., John x. 18 ; ἐπ’ αὐτὸν, ὅτι αὐτῷ, “ are intentionally 
brought together ” (Wiesinger). 

Ver. 8. νήψατε (chap. iv. 7), ypnyopjoare, cf. 1 Thess. v. 6; placed in jux- 
taposition by asyndeton “in nervous conciseness, in virtue of which ὅτι, too, 
is omitted before 6 ἀντιδικος ᾿ (Wiesinger). Temperance and watchfulness 
are specially necessary, in order to remain faithful amid all the temptations 
of suffering. The reason is given in what follows. — ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος. 
Hensler’s explanation: “slandering opponents,” requires no refutation. — 
διαβολος is a substantive, in explanatory apposition to ὁ avrid, ὑμῶν, which 
latter is used, in this passage only, to designate the devil (corresponding to 
the Hebrew j0W, which, however, the LXX. always translate by διάβολος). 
The word denotes strictly an opponent in a court of justice; but it occurs also 
in a general sense as “adversary.” Schott would retain the original appli- 
cation, after Zech. iii. 1 ff., Rev. xii. 10, in that “the devil will, as it were, 
compel God to declare in condemnatory judgment that the Christians have 
forfeited salvation;” but there is no allusion to the divine judgment here, 
the καταπίνειν is rather indicated as the aim of the devil. — ὡς λέων ὠρυόμενος ].? 
ὠρύεσθαι peculiariter dicitur ἐπὶ λιμῷ κλαιόντων λύκων, ἢ λεόντων, ἢ κυνῶν (Hesych.), 
οἵ. Ps. civ. 91. --- περιπατεῖ (Job i. 7, ii. 2) ζητῶν τίνα καταπίῃ! περιπατεῖν and 
ζητῶν belong strictly to each other, so that the comparison with the lion 
applies to both (Steiger). The efforts of the devil are directed against 
Christians, who, as such, do not belong to him; as long as they remain 


1 Gerhard: ““μέριμνα significat curam 2 Augustin (Sermo 46, De Divers., c. \i.): 
sollicitam et dubiam, quae mentem in ‘Christus leo propter fortitudinem, diabolus 
partes divisas velut dividit, a μερίζειν τὸν propter -feritatem; ille leo ad vincendum, iste 
νοῦν. leo δὰ nocendum.” 


CHAP. V. 9. 335 
faithful to their Christian calling, he can do them no harm (1 John v. 18), 
therefore he is on the lookout whom (according to the reading: τίνα καταπίῃ) 
he may devour, or if he may devour any one (according to the reading: τινὰ 
καταπιεῖν), by alluring to unfaithfulness.1 — καταπίνειν, “devour,” denotes com- 
plete destruction. Chrysostom (Homil. 22, Ad Popul. Antioch.): circuit 
quaerens, non quem mordeat vel frangat, sed quem devoret. 

Ver. 9. ᾧ ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει, cf. Jas. iv. 7; Eph. vi. 11 ff. τῇ πίστει 
does not belong to ἀντίστητε (Bengel), but to στερεοί; not as the dat. instrum. 

' (Beza, Hensler), but as the dative of nearer definition: “firm in the faith; ” 
cf. Acts xvi. 5; Col. ii. 7; cf. Winer, p. 202 (E. T., 215). It is only a firm 
faith that can resist the devil. — εἰδότες τὰ αὐτὰ tov παθημάτων . . . ἐπιτελεῖσθαι]. 
Almost all interpreters assume that the construction here is that of the accus. 
c.inf. Hofmann, nevertheless, denies this, remarking that in the N. T. εἰδοτες 
(in the sense of “knowing”) never takes the accus. c. inf., but always the 
particle ὅτῳ and that when εἰδότες is followed by the accus. c. inf., it signifies 
“to understand how-to do a thing.”? If this be correct, ἐπιτελεῖσθαι must 
have an active meaning, τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθ. be the accusative after it, and the 
dative τῇ... ἀδελφότητι be dependent on τὰ αὐτά. Explaining ἐπιτελεῖσθαι on 
the analogy of the phrase τὰ τοῦ γήρως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι (Xen., Mem., iv. 8, 8), and 
seeing in τὰ αὐτὰ the idea of measure expressed, Hofmann translates, “ know- 
ing how to pay for your Christianity the same tribute of affliction as your 
brethren in the world.” This explanation cannot be accepted without hesi- 
tation. For, on the one hand, from the fact that in other parts of the N. T. 
εἰδότες does not take the accus. ec. inf., it cannot be concluded that here it 
does not do so either, the more especially that the construction of the accus. 
6. inf. occurs comparatively rarely in the N. T.; and, on the other hand, 
the phrase, τὰ... τῶν παθ. ἀποτεῖ., is not analogous with the expression, τὰ 
τοῦ γήρως ἐπιτελ.; Since in the former there is no conception corresponding to τοῦ 
γήρως. Hofmann inserts, indeed, as such, the idea of the Christian calling; 
but it is purely imported, and nowhere hinted at in the text. Accordingly, 
ἐπιτελεῖσθαι ---- grammatically considered —can have a passive signification ; 
not, indeed, equivalent to “are completed” (Thue. vii. 2; Phil. i. 6, and 
other passages), for this idea would not be suitable here, but rather, “are 
being accomplished.? This idea is, in truth, not very appropriate either; it 
seems to be more fitting to take the verb in a middle sense, as equivalent 
to “are accomplishing themselves;” and to translate, “ knowing (or, better, 
rather: considering) that the same sufferings are accomplishing themselves 
in the brethren.” This rendering is to be preferred to all others. The 
Vulg. translates émred. by fieri: Luther, by “befall.” both are too inexact 
renderings of the sense. In the explanation above given, τὰ αὐτὰ is used as 
a substantive, as frequently happens with the neuter of adjectives (Winer, 


1 Hofmann irrelevantly remarks, that 8 Thus Herod., i. 51, in connection with τὰ 
ζητεῖν, tollowed by an interrogative, means, to ἐπιτασσόμενα; Thuc. i. 138: ἐπιτελέσαι ἃ 
consider a thing; the word above is evidently ὑπέσχετο. 


stronger than that. 

2 Cf. the passages quoted by Hofmann: 
Matt. vii. 11; Luke xi. 13, xii. 36; Jas. iv. 17; 
Phil, iv. 12; 1 Tim. fii. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 9. 


4 The translation of Wichelhaus, “to le 
laid upon,” is entirely unjustifiable. 


990 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


p. 2201 [E. T., 2947), and is put here to emphasize the sameness of the 
sufferings (thus De Wette, Wiesinger) ; τῇ . . . ἀδελφότητι is to be taken as 
the more remote object; on no condition can the dative be understood 
as equivalent to ὑπὸ in passives. With the idea ἀδελφότητι, οἷ. chap. ii. 17. — 
The addition, ἐν κόσμῳ, alludes to the reason of the afflictions (Steiger). 
Wiesinger justly remarks: “in the world, the dominion of the Evil One, 
the Christian can and dare expect nothing else.” Possibly it may contain 
at the same time a reference to the ἀδελφύότης, which the Lord has already 
taken to Himself ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου! The thought that the brethren have to bear 
the same afflictions, serves to give strength in resisting the devil, since the 
consciousness of bearing similar afflictions in common with all Christian 
brethren encourages to patient endurance. 

Vv. 10,11. Promise of blessing, and doxology. —6 dé Θεός, placed by way 
of emphasis at: the beginning. That which has gone before has told the 
readers what they should do; in contrast to this (dé), the apostle now says 
what God will do (Schott); with the expression: Θεὸς πάσης χάριτος, cf. 2 Cor. 
1. 3: Θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως. God as the author of all grace; χάρις conceived 
as a possession. Like the whole promise of blessing, this very designation 
of God serves to comfort and strengthen the readers in their afflictions. — 
ὁ καλέσας ὑμᾶς, κ.τ.1., cf. 1 Thess. ii. 12 (2 Thess. ii. 14); that is, to partici- 
pation in His (God's) own δόξα. The participation is here thought of as 
future, although for believing Christians it is even now present in its begin- 
ning (2 Pet. i. 4). In this calling there is already contained the pledge of 
the promises that follow: καταρτίσει, x.7.A. —év Χριστῷ belongs to καλέσας, more 
nearly defined by ὑμᾶς εἰς, etc. (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott), not to dotuv 
(Hofmann). God possesses the glory not first in Christ, as Hofmann says, 
but He has had it from all eternity, although in Christ it is first revealed. 
Gerhard interprets incorrectly: propter meritum Christi. ἐν is by several 
interpreters inaccurately taken as equivalent to da; but though ἐν denote 
instrumentality, this is of a more inward nature than that expressed by διά. 
The sense is: by God having brought you into union with Christ (thus also 
De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott). The connection of ἐν Xp, with ὀλίγ. παθόντας 
following (Glossa interl.: sicut membra in illo patientes, Nicol. de Lyra) has 
nothing to commend it. —dAiyov παθοντας. ὀλίγον, as in chap. i. 6: “a little 
while.” — παθόντας is to be joined with καλέσας, «.7.A. (Steiger, De Wette, 
Wiesinger), but in such a way that in sense it does not apply so much to 
καλέσας, as to the obtaining of the δόξα of God, since the aorist must not arbi- 
trarily be interpreted as a present. Hofmann rightly observes: “ Peter sub- 
joins this aorist participle as if it had been preceded by εἰς τὸ δοξάζεσθαι. 3 
Lachmann and Tischendorf (om. ὑμὰς after καταρτίσει) have connected these 
words with what follows, as also the Vulg. translates: modicum passos ipse 
perficiet (so also Wichelhaus). Many, particularly among the older com- 
mentators, even retaining the ὑμᾶς, have adopted this construction; Luther: 


1 Hofmann erroneously appeals to Har- as he looks from the present, in so far as it 
tung’s Gr., II. p. 238, in support of the inter- already contains their completion, back on the 
pretation ‘‘ the same measure of suffering.” present of actual reality, the sufferings appear 

2 Schott’s explanation, that ‘‘ to the apostle as past,’ is inappropriate. 


: 


¢ 


CHAP. V. 12-14. 3387 


“The same will make you, that suffer a little while, fully prepared,” ete. 
Opposed to this, however, is as much the fact that the καταρτίζειν does not 
take place after the afflictions only, but during them, as that the present afflic- 
tion and the future glory belong closely together; οἵ. ver. 1.—If, as is highly 
probable, the tude after xataprice be spurious, it must be supplied out of the 
ὑμᾶς that precedes. — αὐτός is placed emphatically: the God . . . , who hath 
called you, He will, etc., the same God; the calling already contains the 
guaranty for the καταρτίζειν, «.7.A.—kataprice, «.7.2.]. καταρτίζειν, Luke vi. 40; 
1 Cor. i. 10; Heb. xiii. 21; Luther rightly translates: “fully prepare ;” 
Bengel: ne remaneat in vobis+defectus. — ornpigew, 2 Thess. ii. 17, iii. 3, and 
other passages. Bengel: ne quid vos labefactet. — σθενοῦν, in. rey. Bengel: 
ut superelis vim omnem adversam. — θεμελιοῦν (see the critical notes); in its 
proper sense, Matt. vii. 25; Luke vi. 48; figuratively: Eph. 111. 18 (τεθεμελιω- 
μενοῖ Synonymous with ἐῤῥιζωμένοι):; Col. i. 23 (synonymous with édpaio). — 
The future expresses the sure expectation that, as the apostle wishes, God 
will perfect, etc., the believers. — If καταρτίσαι be read, this form must not be 
taken as the infinitive (Pott), but as the optative.1— The heaping-up of 
expressions connected by asyndeton is rhetorical, and arises from the natural 
impulse of an agitated heart to find full expression for its feelings. — Ver. 11. 
The same doxology as in chap. iv. 11. It sets the seal on the hope just 
expressed. 

Vy. 12-14. Concluding remarks; first, ver. 12, as to the letter itself. — 
διὰ Lidovavod . . . ἔγραψα]. There is no reason to doubt that this Silvanus is 
the well-known companion of the Apostle Paul. Whilst in the Acts he is 
named “Silas,” Paul, like Peter, calls him “Silvanus.” He was sent from 
the convention of apostles, along with Paul, Barnabas, and Judas Barsabas, 
as bearers of the epistle to Antioch. After this he accompanied Paul on his 
second missionary journey. He is not mentioned afterwards, nor is it 
known at what time he came to Peter. διὰ... ἔγραψα does not designate 
Silvanus either as the translator or the writer of the epistle, but simply as 
the bearer of it. διά has here the same sense as in the subscriptions of the 
Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, etc.; it is synonymous with διὰ 
χειρός, Acts xv. 23. —“It is evident that the choice of Silas for this (media- 
tory) mission was a particularly happy one, as he had been Paul’s companion 
in former times, and had assisted him in founding the greater part of the 
churches here addressed ” (Wieseler). —ipiv τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ]. ὑμῖν can be 
joined either with the following ἔγραψα, or with πιστοῦ ad, If the latter com- 
bination be adopted (it is more simple if tov be erased as spurious, but is 
also possible if rod be retained; equivalent to “who is the faithful brother 
unto you”), the apposition indicates that an intimate relation subsisted be- 
tween Silvanus and the churches to which Peter writes. The connection 
with ἔγραψα, however, is the more natural one, ὑμῖν being inserted between, 
as in Gal. vi. 11. —6 πιστὸς ἀδελφός is the name given to Silvanus, because 
generally he had proved faithful in the performance of every service for the 
church of Christ. There is no reason why the expression should be referred 


1 Erasmus, by first reading καταρτίσαι and subsequent words as substantives: ‘ perficiet 
then στηρίξει, etc., understands this and the fultura confirmatione, fundatione.”’ 


998 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

specially to his relation to the churches of Asia Minor only (as formerly in 
this commentary), or particularly to that in which he stood to Peter (Iof- 
mann). Still, it is not improbable that Peter, by this designation, alludes 
to the confidence he has, that-he will also prove faithful in the service which 
is now required of him. — The following words, ὡς λογίζομαι, may be applied 
either to the opinion just expressed on Silvanus (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, 
Wichelhaus), or to the subsequent δι᾽ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα (Steiger, Hofmann). It 
is hardly possible to come to a definite conclusion. At any rate, λογίζομαι 
does not express an uncertain conjecture; cf. Rom. 111. 28, viii. 18; Heb. 
xi. 19. In the first case, by the confirmation which it contains of the opin- 
ion just uttered, it serves to strengthen the confidence of the churches in 
Silvanus; in the second, the apostle indicates that, considering the impor- 
tance of his subject and the yearning of his heart, he looks on his letter as 
a short one.! This last appears the more probable. — dr ὀλίγων, equal to διὰ 
βραχέων, Heb. xiii. 22: “in few words;” οἵ. Thucyd., iv. 95. — ἔγραψα refers 
to this epistle, which the apostle is on the point of closing, and not, as Eras- 
mus, Grotius, etc., altogether unwarrantably assume, to a former one which 
has been lost;? οἵ. Philem. 19, 21. — παρακαλὼν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρὼν]. Although 
by these two words the apostle indicates two distinct subjects, still these are 
not to be separated in such a way as to be applicable to different parts of 
the epistle (De Wette, Briickner) ; 8 but the παράκλησις and the ἐπιμαρτύρησις 
are throughout the whole letter closely bound up together. As the contents 
of the ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν are stated, but not those of the παρακαλεῖν, the chief stress 
is laid on the former, the latter (παρακαλῶν) being placed first, in order 
thereby to give prominence to the character of the ἐπιμαρτύρησις. Contrary 
to its common usage, De Wette interprets ἐπιμαρτυρῶν : in addition to, i.e., 
testifying in addition to the exhortation. ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν simply means: to bear 
witness to any thing (opp. ἀντιμαρτυρεῖν, see Pape and Cremer, 8. v.. in the 
N. T. az. Aey.; ἐπιμαρτύρεσθαι occurs in the LXX. and in the Apocr., but not 
ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν) ; Bengel is therefore wrong in interpreting: testimonium jam per 
Paulum et Silam audierant pridem: Petrus INSUPER TESTATUR;} 80, too, is 
Hofmann in saying that in ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν it is presupposed that the readers 
themselves already know and believe what Peter testifies. — ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ 
χάριν τοὺ Θεοῦ]. Contents of the ἐπιμαρτύρησις : “that this is the true grace of 


1 Hofmann’s opinion is purely arbitrary, 2 Τὴ this interpretation, ws λογίζομαι is 


‘*that since the individual churches received 
the epistle, intended as it was for so wide a 
circle, only in a transcription of a transcrip- 
tion, and had again to send it on, a modest re- 
mark, that he had not made his letter too long 
1n order to venture to ask them to take this 
trouble, was not inappropriate.’? Nothing 
alludes to the taking of any such trouble. — 
Fronmiiller’s view is also incorrect. He thinks 
that ws Aoyi¢g. should be taken with διὰ ScAov. 
éyp., in the sense of, “1 count upon your 
receiving this epistle by Silvanus,’ — for 
there is no question here of the receiving 
of it. 


applied to the writing of the former epistle. 
Erasmus: “per Silvanum. . . qui non dubito, 
quin epistolam bona fide reddiderit.” Simi- 
larly, Pott: ‘*antehac et, si recte memini (‘if 
I remember aright! ’) per Silv. epistolam vobis 
scripsi.” Differently, Wetstein: ‘‘ Scripsi, ut 
ipse sentio et apud me, omnibus rite perpensis, 
statuo, ita etiam alios hortor, ut idem mecum 
profiteantur’ doctrinam Christi esse veram.” 

8. «The first statement of the contents of 
the epistle applies to chap. i. 13-v. 9; the sec- 
ond, to i. 3-12; and one or two passages in the 
hortatory portion, as i, 18-20, 25, ii. 9 f., iii. 18, 
iy. 12 f.” 


CHAP. V. 13. 339 
God ;”! ταύτην does not refer to that of which the apostle has written, but 
its more precise definition follows in the subsequent relative clause. Peter 
accordingly sets forth, in conclusion, that his epistle testifies to the readers 
that that grace in which they already stood is the true grace, from which, 
therefore, they should not depart (cf. with this, chap. i. 12, 25, ii. 10, 25). 
No doubt this was the χάρις which had been brought to them by means of 
the preaching of Paul, but it does not follow that the purpose of Peter’s 
ἐπιμαρτύρησις was to set, for the readers, the seal on that preaching. It is not 
the preaching which is here in question, but the χάρις in which the readers 
stood, quite apart from the person through whose instrumentality it was 
brought to them. Had Peter intended to bear a testimony to Paul, he would 
surely have done so in clear terms; nor does any thing in the epistle allude 
to an uncertainty on the part of the readers as to whether Paul had preached 
the true gospel to them. χάρις is not doctrina evangelii (Gerhard); but neither 
is it “the state of grace” (De Wette), for with this the adjunct τοῦ Θεοῦ would 
not harmonize. But it denotes the objective divine grace, into the sphere of 
which the readers have entered by means of faith; cf. Rom. v. 2. --- ἀληθῆ 
stands here as the leading conception, not with any polemical reference to 
an erroneous doctrine (for there is no trace of any such polemic in the 
epistle), but is intended by the apostle to mark in itself the truth and reality 
of this χάρις, in order that the readers may not be induced by the persecu- 
tions to abandon it.—eic ἣν éorgxare: for this construction, cf. Winer, p. 
386 ἢ. (E. T., 414 ἢ). If the reading στῆτε be adopted, this adjunct expresses 
the exhortation to continue in that grace. Here, however, the nearer defi- 
nition necessary to ταύτην is wanting; for as the ἐπιμαρτύρησις is not some- 
thing added on to the epistle (ἔγραψα), ταύτην χάριν cannot be the grace of 
which I have written to you. 

Ver. 13. Salutation. —The notion that 7 . συνεκλεκτῇ denotes the 
apostle’s wife (Bengel, Mayerhoff, Jachmann, etc.) finds no support from 
1 Cor. ix. 5; it is contradicted by the ἐν Βαβυλῶνι 32 inserted between. By 
far the greater number of commentators rightly consider it to mean: “the 
church in Babylon” (x has the word ἐκκλησίᾳ after Βαβυλῶνι; Occ. and Vulg., 
ecclesia). According to Hofmann, ἐκκλησία is not to be supplied to συνεκλεκτῆ, 
“but the churches to which the apostle writes are, as such, ἐκλεκταί, and the 
church from which he sends greetings is, as such, a συνεκλεκτῆ, as she from 
whom the Apostle John sends salutations is an ἀδελφὴ éxAexrg” (2 John 13). 
But in John’s Epistle, ver. 1, κυρία, and ver. 18, ἀδελφή, are put along with 
éxAextm; accordingly, it does not follow that ovvexdexrm, without the addi- 
tional idea ἐκκλησία, would of itself mean a church. The ov refers to the 
churches to which Peter sends the salutation of the former, cf. chap. i. 1.8 


1 Hofmann lays stress on the want of the 2 According to several commentators, 


article before χάριν, and therefore interprets: 
‘that it is real grace of God, that that is in 
truth grace from God, wherein they have come 
to stand;’’ but if Peter had meant this, he 
would not have written ἀληθῆ, but ἀληθῶς. In 
this interpretation also the rule of assimilation 
is wrongly applied. 


συνεκλ., though not meaning definitely Peter’s 
wife, yet refers to some other excellent woman 
of the church. Wolf even thinks it may be 
understood as a proper name. 

8 It is far-fetched when Schott says that ἡ 
συνεκλ. ἡ ἐν Βαβ. is not written here, but ἡ ἐν 
Βαβ, συνεκλ.,) because the very fact of her be- 


340 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 

According to Eusebius (H. E., c. 15), Papias already was of opinion that 
the name Babylon is here used figuratively, and that by it Rome is to be 
understood. The same view is adopted by Clemens Alex., Hieronymus, 
Oecumenius, Beda, Luther, and by most of the Catholic interpreters;1 in 
more recent times, by Thiersch,-Ewald, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Schott, ete. 
The principal reasons brought forward in support of this view are— 
(1) The tradition of the primitive Church, which speaks of the apostle’s 
stay in Rome, but makes no mention of his having lived in Babylon; (2) 
The designation of Rome as Babylon in Revelation, chap. xiv. 8, xviii. 
2,10; (8) The banishment of the Jews from Babylon in the time of the 
Emperor Claudius, according to Joseph., Ant., i. 18, c. 12. But these 
reasons are not conclusive, for— (1) The tradition has preserved altogether 
very imperfect and uncertain notices of the apostles; (2) In Revelation 
this designation is very naturally explained from the reference to O.-T. 
prophecy; (3) The account of Josephus does not lead us to understand 
that all the Jews were banished from Babylon and its vicinity (see 
Mayerhoff, p. 128 ff., and Wieseler, p. 557 f.).2 Although De Wette’s 
rejoinder, that “the allegorical designation is unnatural in a letter, espe- 
cially in the salutation,” may be going too far, still it is improbable. that 
Peter, in simply conveying a greeting, would have made use of an allegorical 
name of a place, without ever hinting that the designation was not to be 
taken literally. This could admit of explanation only if, at the time the 
epistle was written, it had been customary among the Christians to speak 
of Rome as Babylon; and that it was so, we have no evidence. Accordingly, 
Erasmus, Calvin, Gerhard, Neander, De Wette-Briickner, Wieseler, Weiss, 
Bleek, Reuss, Fronmiiller, etc., have justly declared themselves opposed to 
the allegorical interpretation. The view that by Babylon is meant the 
Babylon in Egypt mentioned by Strabo, i. 17 (Pearson, Calov, Vitringa, 
Wolf), has nothing to commend it, the less so that this Babylon was simply 
a military garrison.? — καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱός μου]. The correct interpretation of 
υἱός μου is given already by Oecumenius: Μάρκον υἱόν, κατὰ πνεῦμα καλεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ob 
κατὰ σάρκα. It is undoubtedly the well-known companion of Paul who is 
meant. Since, according to Acts, Peter was acquainted with his mother, 
it is probable that Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter. The 
idea that Peter here speaks of a son of his own after the flesh, named 
Mark (Bengel, Hottinger, Jachmann, etc.), could receive support only if 
συνεκλεκτῆ Were used to designate the apostle’s wife. 


ing in Babylon (i.e., Rome) makes the church 
ἃ συνεκλεκτή, i.e., the real associate of the 
churches who read the epistle; namely, in as 
far as thus reference is made to a like condi- 
tion of suffering. 

1 Lorinus remarks: ‘‘ Omnes quot quot lege- 
rim interpretes catholici romanam intelligunt 
ecclesiam.” Calvin says of this interpretation: 
‘hoc commentum Papistae libenter arripiunt, 
ut videatur Petrus romanae ecclesiae prae- 
fuisse.” 

2 Hofmann maintains that it is ‘‘indiscoy- 


erable how Peter had come to know the two 
Pauline Epistles to the Romans and Ephe- 
sians,” if he wrote his epistle in Babylon. 
But the composition of the epistle in Rome is 
not by any means proved by so uncertain an 
assertion. 

8 It is clearly quite arbitrary when some 
scholars, like Capellus, Spanheim, and Sem- 
ler, understand Babylon here as a name for 
Jerusalem, or even for the house where the 
apostles were assembled on the day of Pente- 
cost, 


CHAP. V. 14. 341 


Ver. 14. ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης]. Paul uses a similar 
expression, Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26. 
The members of the church are by turns to greet one another (not each 
other in Peter’s name) with the kiss of charity, thus testifying to their 
brotherly love for each other (see Meyer on 1 Cor. xvi. 26). Instead of 
the Pauline: ἐν ἁγίῳ gA., there is here: ἐν φιλ. ἀγάπης, “with the kiss of love,” 
i.e., the kiss, which is the type and expression of Christian brotherly love. 
— The final benediction is likewise similar to those in the epistles of Paul ; 
only that in these χάρις stands in the place of εἰρήνη (Eph. vi. 28, 24, both 
occur; cf. too, 3 John 15). By the addition of τοῖς ἐν Xp., the πάντες are 
designated according to their nature as such, who live in union with Christ, 
and to whom, therefore, the benediction here pronounced belongs. 


ξὺν 


Meee 





ω 4 δ 
us roe ν 
‘ x f ) 
Ὗ ” iS 
Σ Way ᾿ 
ν᾿ Ξ ᾽ ; 
᾿ς “aD 
' F , 
- ᾿ oe 7 
Fit The , 
x Ἵ a » 
᾿ ἢ 
ς i 
=: vt bs i 
Ka - 
a ~ 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 


INTRODUCTION. 


SEC. 1.— OCCASION, CONTENTS, AND CHARACTER OF THE 
EPISTLE. 


THE epistle on its own testimony professes to have been written by the 
Apostle Peter (chap. i. 1, 14, 16-18, iii. 1, 15), subsequent to his first epistle 
(chap. iii. 1; comp. also i. 16), and addressed to the same churches. Its 
occasion and aim are stated in chap. iii. 17,18. The author is in anxiety 
as to the false teachers who were about to appear, — he nevertheless pictures 
them as actually present,—and therefore he wishes to warn his readers 
against them, that they might not be led astray, and exhorts them to grow 
in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
The false teachers against whom the epistle is directed are the Libertines 
(chap. ii.), and the deniers of the parousia of Christ, and the destruction of 
the world connected therewith (chap. iii.). It is commonly assumed that 
in chap. iii. the persons meant are the same as those described in chap. ii. 
But an identity of this kind is nowhere suggested; indeed, the way and the 
terms in which the ἐμπαίκται are introduced in chap. 111. seem rather to indi- 
cate that by the latter — although mention is also made of their sensual life 
(κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι) ---- different individuals are intended 
from those portrayed in chap. ii. (Weiss). — De Wette’s opinion, that the 
author had in his eye “vicious persons” simply, and not “false teachers,” 
is erroneous, it being abundantly evident from vv. 18, 19, that the persons 
described in chap. ii. based their actions on a definite principle; moreover, 
they are expressly termed ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, ver. 1. It is also equally erroneous 
to take them to be Gnostics, properly so called, or more particularly, with 
Grotius, followers of Carpocrates. Bertholdt calls them Sadducee Chris- 
tians, but this term is wanting in the necessary precision. Cf. my Intro- 
duction to Jude’s Epistle. 


343 


944 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


The epistle falls into two principal divisions, each consisting of two 
parts. In the first part of the first division (chap. i. 1-11), the author 
reminds the Christians of the blessings, more especially the ἐπαγγέλματα, of 
which by the power of God they had been made partakers, linking on to 
this the exhortation to give abundant proof of the virtues which are the 
fruits of faith, — those especially in which he that is wanting is like unto 
one blind, and he only who possesses can enter into the eternal kingdom of 
Christ. — In the second part (chap. i. 12-21), the author, as the Apostle 
Peter, mentions first, what had induced him to give the exhortation at this 
particular time, and then refers his readers to the certainty of Christ’s 
advent, confirmed as it was both by the divine words which himself had 
heard at the Saviour’s transfiguration and by the prophecies of the Old 
Covenant. —In the first part of the second division (chap. ii.), the author 
portrays the immoral character of the Libertines. He begins by announ- 
cing their coming, future as yet; calls them deniers of the Lord who would 
seduce many, but would not escape punishment (vv. 1-3); then he proves 
the certainty of their punishment by the examples of the fallen angels, those 
who perished in the Flood, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, not for- 
getting, however, in the last two cases to call to remembrance Noah and 
Lot, just men both, and therefrom to draw the conclusion as to the right- 
eousness of God (vv. 4-9). In vv. 10-22 follows the more minute descrip- 
tion of the sensual character of the false teachers. — The author commences 
the last part of this division by stating the design of this second epistle, and 
then goes on to mention the scoffers who would walk after their own lusts, 
and would deny the advent of the Lord (chap. iii. 1-4); this he follows up 
by a refutation of the arguments on which the denial is based, foretelling 
the coming destruction of the world by fire, and representing the apparent 
delay of the judgment as an act of divine patience (vv. 5-10); and to this 
he subjoins the exhortation to a holy walk in expectation of the new heaven 
and the new earth (vv. 11-13). — The epistle concludes with the mention 
of the Apostle Paul’s epistles, coupled with the warning against wresting 
the difficult passages contained in them. Finally, the author gives forth 
exhortations by way of caution, in which he makes apparent the design of 
the epistle; on this follows the doxology. 

The fundamental idea which runs through the whole epistle is that of 
the ἐπίγνωσις Χριστοῦ, which consists essentially in the acknowledgment of the 
δύναμις καὶ παρουσία of Christ. Advancement in this ἐπίγνωσις, as the ground 
and aim of the exercise of all Christian virtue, is the prominent feature of 
every exhortation. Hence the τίμια ἐπαγγέλματα are designated as that by 


INTRODUCTION. 945 


which κοινωνία with the divine nature is effected, and which must move the 
Christian to show all zeal in supplying the Christian virtues. The author 
is therefore at pains to prove the certain fulfilment of those promises, and 
to refute the sceptical doubts of the false teachers. A 

As regards its structure, the epistle has encountered much adverse criti- 
_cism from the opponents of its authenticity. Mayerhoff reproaches it, more 
especially, with a clumsy and illogical development; but it cannot fail to be 
observed that there is a clear and firm line of thought, by which all particu- 
lars are joined together and form a well-arranged whole (cf. Bruckner, Finl., 
§ 1a; Hofmann, p. 121 ff.). The thoughts which form the commencement 
of the epistle prepare the way for the warnings against the false teachers, 
and have as their aim the concluding exhortations which point back to the 
heresy. The prominence given to the thought that τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν 
are bestowed upon us (i. 3), and the exhortation to furnish the Christian 
virtues (i. 5-11), are all aimed at the false teachers, who would indulge in 
ἀσελγεῖαις, and by whom the ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας Would be brought into disrepute 
(ii. 2); whilst the emphasis laid on the ἐπαγγέλματα (i. 4), as also the refer- 
ence to the incidents of the transfiguration as a proof of the δύναμις καὶ 
παρουσία οἵ Christ (i. 16-18), point to the prophetic announcement of the 
coming of the ἐμπαῖκται who would deny the advent of the Saviour (iii. 3 ff.). 
Still, it is surprising that the whole of the second chapter may be omitted 
without the connection of thought being in any way injured thereby. For 
inasmuch as the scoffers are characterized as men who walk κατὰ τὰς ἰδιας 
αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας, the moral exhortations introduced in i. 38, 4, and to which 
ili. 12 has retrospect, may be applicable to them also; and although ii. 1 is 
closely connected with i. 19-21 by the words: ἐγένοντο dé καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν 
τῷ λαῷ, Yet μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητὼν (111. 2) can 
equally be joined with them. It may accordingly be conjectured that 
chap. ii. was afterwards added, either by the writer himself, or by some 
later hand; but, again, opposed to such a supposition is the circumstance 
that chap. ii. in no way disturbs the unity of the whole. 

Besides several echoes of the Pauline Epistles and the First Epistle of 
Peter, this letter, as is well known, presents in the second chapter, and in 
one or two passages of the first and third, a striking resemblance to the 
Epistle of Jude, which cannot possibly be considered accidental. Rather 
must one of these epistles be regarded as the original, of which the author 
of the other made use. Jn former times the prevalent view was, that the 
Second Epistle of Peter was the original (thus Luther, Wolf, Semler, Storr, 
Pott, etce.); but afterwards the opposite opinion obtained most favor (thus 


846 THE ‘SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
already Herder, Hug, Eichhorn, Credner, Neander, Mayerhoff, De Wette, 
Guericke) ; and in more recent times it has been supported by Reuss, Bleek, 
Arnaud, Wiesinger, Brickner, Weiss, and F. Philippi, —that is to say, not 
only by opponents of the authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter, but by 
defenders of it also (Wiesinger, Briickner, Weiss). A different judgment, 
however, is passed by Thiersch, Dietlein, Stier, Luthardt, Schott, Steinfass, 
Fronmiiller, Hofmann. Appeal is made chiefly to this circumstance, that at 
the time when the Epistle of Jude was composed, the false teachers were 
already present, while in Second Peter their appearance is looked upon as 
future, and is the subject of prophecy. But this, as Weiss has shown, is an 
That the 


passages Jude 17 and 18 have no reference to 2 Pet. ii. 1-3 and iii. 2, 3, is 


argument only in.appearance, and is in no way capable of proof. 


plain from this, that had Jude seen in the appearance of the Libertines the 
fulfilment of the prediction contained in Second Peter, he would have styled 
For in Second Peter it 
is not the Libertines described in chap. ii. that are called ἐμπαῖκται, but the 


them, not ἐμπαῖκται, «.7.A,, but rather ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι. 


deniers of the parousia spoken of in chap. iii., whom Jude does not even 
mention. Nor is it easy to see why Jude, if in vv. 17 and 18 he really had 
in his mind the prophecy given by Peter, should not have directly said so, 
but should rather have spoken of the actual word of the actual Peter as ra 
ῥήματα τὰ προειρημένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστολων τοὺ κυρίου. In favor of the view that 
the Second Epistle of Peter is dependent on the Epistle of Jude, is the 
latter’s entirely individual manner of thought and diction, which bears 
the distinct impress of originality;! whilst in Second Peter, on the other 
hand, there is apparent the endeavor to tone down the expression by simpli- 
fication, addition, or omission. Further, the circumstance that the more 
the expression in Peter’s second epistle coincides with that of Jude, the 
more does what is otherwise peculiar to the epistle tend to disappear.? 
And, finally, the absence of any tenable reason which might have induced 
originality and _ pithi- 


1 Herder: “ See whata thoroughly powerful greater intellectual 


epistle, like a fire-wheel running back into ness.”” 


itself; take now that of Peter, what introduc- 
tion he makes, how he tones down, omits, con- 
firms,” etc.; ‘‘Jude has always the most 
precise and the strongest expression.” Even 
Schott grants, in opposition to Dietlein, “‘ that 
the Epistle of Jude bears the impress of much 
greater literary originality on the part of the 
writer than that of Second Peter; ” and that 
“it must be allowed to possess a by far 


2 This Weiss brings very decidedly for- 
ward: ‘It plainly appears, that wherever in 
the parallel passages it strikingly coincides 
with that of Jude, the expression is to be 
found nowhere else in Second: Peter; but 
wherever it deviates from that of Jude, or 
becomes entirely independent, it is at once in 
surprising conformity with the form of ex- 
pression in this or the First Epistle of Peter.” 


INTRODUCTION. 347 


Jude to collect together separate passages from a larger apostolic writing, in 
order to compose therefrom a new epistle, which, seeing that the former 
was already in existence, must have had the less significance that it omits 
from the delineation important particulars which are contained in Second 
Peter.} ; 


In discussing the question as to which is the original epistle, two points 
must be remembered: (1) ‘* That in neither have we a slavish dependence or a 
mere copy, but that the correspondence of the one with the other is carried out 
with literary freedom and license ἯΙ Weiss); and (2) The circumstance that this 
question is not identical with that as to the authenticity of the Second Epistle 
of Peter; Wiesinger, Weiss, Brickner, defend its authenticity, although they 
question its priority. — The reasons which Schott adduces for the priority of 
the Epistle of Jude are simple assertions, which a closer examination by no 
means justifies, inasmuch as they are either plainly arbitrary, or presuppose 
artificial interpretations and pure inventions. Steinfass thinks, strangely 
enough, that to accept the originality of Jude’s Epistle is somewhat hazardous 
for that composition itself, and not only for Second Peter, inasmuch as on the 
assumption he takes the repeated reference to the pseudo-Enoch to be an 
offence, many examples a redundancy, much conciseness restralnt, and the 
whole arrangement pretty much confusion. Fronmiiller bases his argument for 
the priority of Second Peter specially on this, that it is inconceivable that 
Peter, the prince of the apostles, should have borrowed expressions, figures, and 
examples from one who was plainly less gifted than himself. Hofmann would 
completely settle the whole question by asserting that Peter composed his 
second epistle soon after his first; that is to say, before the destruction of 
Jerusalem, while Jude wrote after (ver. 5!) that event. But when, neverthe- 
less quite superfluously, he by way of proof goes into particulars, he, on the 
one hand, bases his arguments on many unjustifiable assertions: as, for exam- 
ple, that Peter exhorts to a holy walk, but Jude to the aggressive maintenance 
of the Christian faith, or that Jude was dealing only with some unworthy 
members of the church in the present, whilst Peter had in view teachers who 
were to arise in the future; and, on the other hand, the proofs he adduces have 
also to be supported by erroneous interpretations, and judgments purely sub- 
jective. —If now, following the course of thought in the Epistle of Jude, we 


consider the individual passages in their relation to what is similar to them in 


1 When Luthardt thinks to explain this by fact that the latter epistle treats equally at 
observing “that Jude could certainly assume length of the false teachers, and that conse- 
that his readers were acquainted with Second quently Jude might have left his entire letter 
Peter, in which enough had already been said unwritten. 
as to the wapovgia,” he entirely overlooks the 


948 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


Second Peter, these results are obtained: In the opening of his epistle, Jude 
introduces his opponents without any bias as τινὲς ἄνθρωποι, without even hint- 
ing that they are those whose appearance Peter had before predicted. The first 
description of them by τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν yupita μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν is 
peculiar to Jude. It is in no way probable that the expression ἀσέλγεια is taken 
from the passage 2 Pet. ii. 2. The following δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι is found in 
Peter also, but to whom it originally belongs cannot be concluded from the 
nearer definitions connected therewith. The fact that the particular features 
by which Jude characterizes his opponents are to be found in 2 Pet. ii. 1-3, 
others being here added, however, and with a less original turn of expression, 
tends to show rather that the Epistle of Jude had exercised an influence on 
that of Peter than vice versa (Wiesinger). In the one epistle as in the other, 
the examples of divine judgment follow the first and special description of the 
adversaries.. Yet these are not in both the same, and in Peter’s epistle, in 
the second and third cases, there is added to the mention of the punishment of 
the ungodly a reference to the deliverance of the just, more especially of Noah 
and Lot. The order in which the examples of judgment are brought forward is, 
in Peter’s composition, chronological, and in so far eminently natural; still the 
selection of the first is striking, since in Gen. vi. 2 ff. there is no mention made 
of a punishment of the angels. Now, as there is nothing in the connection of 
thought here which could have determined Peter to bring forward this example, 
he must have been moved to do so by something external to it, that is, by the 
influence which the Epistle of Jude had upon him. The order of examples of 
judgment in Jude is of so singular a nature, that so far from showing even the 
faintest trace of a dependence on Peter, it is rather on the assumption of any 
such quite incomprehensible. How could it ever have occurred to Jude, sup- 
posing he drew from Second Peter, to place the case of the unbelieving Israel- 
ites first, and to omit that of the Flood ? Jude’s manner of presentation is based 
on a conception so entirely original, that it cannot possibly have been suggested 
to him by that in Second Peter. It is difficult to see what could have moved 
Jude to avoid the two-sided character of Peter’s examples, if it really lay before 
him: it was equally well suited to his purpose. Noticeable, also, is the latter’s 
prevailing tendency to generalization. The last two examples adduced by Jude 
have reference to a quite definite sin, the éxmopveverv καὶ ἀπέρχεσθαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς 
ἑτέρας; Peter, on the other hand, deals only with the general distinction between 
godly and ungodly; and whilst Jude characterizes the conduct of the angels as 
it lay to his hand in the tradition, or in the Book of Enoch itself, Peter con- 
tents himself with the more general ἁμαρτησάντων, and avoids all distinct refer- 
ence to that tradition. But whence had he, then, the σειραὶς ζύφου, k.7.A., if he 
did not write under the influence of Jude’s epistle? After the examples of 
judgment, there follows, in both epistles, the description of the Libertines, 
according to their sensual walk, and their despising and defamation of the 


- 


INTRODUCTION. 349 


supernatural powers. Amidst much that is similar, there are, nevertheless, 
many points of disagreement, so that, in general, it may be open to dispute in 
which epistle the more original expression prevails. This is, however, not the 
case as regards the difference between Jude 9 and 2 Pet. ii. 11, for instead of 
Jude’s concrete description according to apocryphal tradition, we have again in 
Peter, as in the mention of the angels formerly, an entirely general expression, 
which, however, must refer to something special. It has indeed been asserted 
(Schott, Hofmann) that Peter’s expression finds its explanation in Zech. iii. 1: 
but if the apostle had this verse in view, he would have made more distinct 
reference to it; nor, again, could any reason be assigned why Jude should have 
alluded, not to the fact recorded in that passage, but to one entirely apocryphal. 
This also speaks decidedly in favor of the priority of Jude’s epistle. Dietlein 
asserts with regard to Jude 10, as compared with 2 Pet. ii. 12, “that the 
higher degree of pure elaboration proves Jude to have been the reviser;”’ but 
this is unjustifiable, as even Steinfass admits. Wiesinger and Brickner rightly 
say, that here also, in the whole mode of expression, the priority of Jude’s 
epistle is recognizable. —In Jude the woe follows, breaking in upon the text, 
and as the basis of it, the comparison of the Libertines with Cain, Balaam, and 
Korah. To this is added a more minute description of them in a series of 
figurative expressions, coupled with Enoch’s prophecy of judgment. In the 
Epistle of Peter, subjoined to φθαρήσονται, ver. 12, is the reference to the reward 
of the ἀδικία of the Libertines, and on this a description of the ἀδικία itself, — 
the false teachers being then at the end classed along with Balaam. It is only 
after this that several figurative designations follow, which are based on their 
propagandist doings. The grouping is accordingly different in each of the 
epistles; and otherwise, with much that is coincident in detail, there are many 
divergences. The train of thought is in both epistles equally suited to the 
subject-matter, only it is somewhat strange that Jude, if he had the Epistle 
of Peter before him, should ever have thought of interrupting the connection of 
ideas here existing between vy. 12 and 13 bya woe. This paragraph clearly 
shows that the dependence of the one author on the other is not to be looked 
upon as of such a nature that the later changed, and arranged with designed 
elaboration, the writings of the earlier, but only, that in the description of the 
same object, the manner of presentation of the latter had wrought with mani- 
fold determination upon that of the former. The divergences which here occur 
are more easily explained on the assumption that the Epistle of Jude, and not 
that of Peter, was the earlier. Were it otherwise, it would certainly be diffi- 
cult to understand how Jude left unnoticed not only the characteristic ὀφθαλμοὺς 
ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος, but also the repeatedly recurring δελεάζοντες, and the 
references generally to the propagandist designs. With regard to this differ- 
ence, that Jude speaks of Cain, Balaam, and Korah, whilst Peter mentions 
Balaam only, it is more natural to suppose that Peter, leaving the other two 


350 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


unnoticed, refers simply to Balaam because the latter appeared to him a par- 
ticularly fitting type of the Libertines (on account of their πλεονεξία, to which 
special prominence is given, and to which the μισθοῦ of Jude alludes ; whilst in 
the case of the others there is no such distinctive trait), than to assume that 
Jude added the two other illustrations to that of Balaam which he had before 
him in the Epistle of Peter. The priority of Jude’s epistle may be recognized 
in this also, that the somewhat striking expression μισθοῦ is, in the composition 
of Peter, supplemented by the explanatory, ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἤγάπησεν. Highly 
characteristic, too, is the relation of the two clauses Jude 12. and Pet. ii. 13), 
especially in their corresponding expressions: omAddec in Jude, and σπῖλοι καὶ 
μῶμοι in Peter, and ἐν ταὶς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν there, and ἐν ταὶς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν here. In 
spite of the different expressions, the influence of the one on the other is 
unmistakable; and it is equally plain that it was not Jude who wrote under 
the influence of Peter, but Peter under that of Jude. For, what could have 
induced Jude to substitute for the clear expression of Peter the uncommon 
omAadec, — which, besides, has a different meaning, —and to change the much 
more general idea ἀπάταις into the special conception ἀγάπαις ὃ Whatever may 
be thought of Weiss’ opinion, that Peter allowed himself to be guided simply 
by the sound of the words, we must certainly agree with him when he says that 
‘*Schott’s attempt to save the originality of Peter’s epistle rests on the entirely 
untenable assumption that the Petrine passage has reference to the love- 
feasts.”’ — His omission of the passage from Enoch, quoted by Jude, can be 
easily enough explained, inasmuch as it was Peter’s predominating desire to 
allow what was apocryphal to recede, especially when by doing so no essential 
thought was omitted, and in chap. ii. 1, 2, distinct enough reference had been 
already made to the future judgment. But it is difficult to see what possible 
reason Jude could have had for inserting the passage from the Apocrypha in 
addition to what he found in Peter. —In what follows, each epistle goes its own 
way, and there are to be found but few traces of any influence of either on the 
other. Those few are as follows: (1) The κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὑτῶν πορευόμενοι in 
Jude 16, 17, and Pet. iii. 3, and the ἐμπαῖκται closely connected herewith. With 
regard to this last expression, it is more than improbable that Jude borrowed it 
from Peter’s epistle, it being there applied to the deniers of the parousia, whom 
Jude does not even mention. Peter, on the other hand, might easily have 
adopted this designation from the Epistle of Jude as very applicable to those 
who called the advent in question, the more so that he had already spoken of 
the Libertines as ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι. Thus, too, is explained the addition from 
Jude’s epistle of κατὰ τὰς, . . πορευόμενοι, which otherwise, as applied by Peter 
to a special heresy, is somewhat surprising. (2) The term ὑπέρογκα, Jude 16 
and Pet. ii. 18; Jude employs it without any nearer definition, but Peter in 
relation to ἐλευθερίαν ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι. This, too, speaks for the priority of Jude’s 
composition; for it is not conceivable that Jude, in adopting the expression, 


INTRODUCTION. ᾿ 851 


would have left unnoticed its nearer definition presented by Peter; whilst, on 
the other hand, the latter might easily have borrowed it from Jude’s epistle, as 
well suited to the end he had in view. — The result, then, of an unbiassed 
comparison can be no other than this, that the Second Epistle of Peter was 
composed under the influence of what Jude had written, and not vice versa. 
This has been proved by Briickner, Wiesinger, and Weiss in their investi- 
gations, which have in part been conducted with more attention to particular 
detail. 


SEC. 2,—THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 


Eusebius (H. E., ii. 23, iii. 5) rightly includes this epistle among the 
Antilegomena, its genuineness haying been called in question by many. 
Origen already expressly says (Eusebius, H. E., vi. 23): Πέτρος... μίαν 
ἐπιστολὴν ὁμολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν" ἔστω δὲ Kal δευτέραν, ἁμφιβάλλεται yap. In 
spite of this verdict, Origen—only, however, in the writings which we 
possess in Latin translation —treats it as a genuine composition of the 
apostle, citing it several times; see Homil. in Josuam vii., Homil. iv. in 
Levitic., Homil. viii. in Numer., and Comment. in Ep. ad Romanos viii. 7. 
— If in his Comment. in Ev. Johannis he speak only of the First Epistle of 
Peter as catholic, saying, with reference to 1 Pet. iii. 18-20: περὶ τῆς ἐν 
φυλακῇ πορείας μετὰ πνεύματος παρὰ τῷ Πέτρῳ ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ, it can at most 
be concluded from this, only that he refused to apply that name to the 
second epistle, perhaps because it had not found general acceptation, but 
not that he himself had any doubts as to its genuineness. — Origen’s 
contemporary, too, Firmilianus of Caesarea, seems to have known the 
epistle, and to have regarded it as genuine; for when, in his Epistle to 
Cyprian (Epp. Cypr., ep. 75), he says that Peter and Paul have condemned 
the heretics in suis epistolis, this seems, as far as Peter is concerned, to be 
applicable to his second epistle only, as in the first there is no mention of any 
such persons. —It cannot be definitely asserted that Clemens Alexandrinus 
commented on this epistle in his Hypotyposes. According to Eusebius 
(H. E., vi. 14): ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὑποτυπώσεσι ξυνέλοντα εἰπεῖν, πάσης τῆς ἐνδιαθῆκου γραφῆς 
ἐπιτετμημένας πεποίηται διηγήσεις" μὴ δὲ τὰς ἀντιλεγομένας παρελθών" τὴν ᾿Ιούδα λέγω καὶ 
τὰς λοιπάς ἐπιστολας" τῆν τε BapvaGa καὶ τὴν Πέτρου λεγομένην ἀποκάλυψιν" καὶ τὴν πρὸς 
Ἑβραίους δὲ ἐπιστολὴν, x.7.4., Clement commented on the whole of the N. T. 
writings, the Antilegomena included, and therefore Second Peter, which 
Eusebius designates as an ἐπιστολὴ ἀντιλεγ. To this, however, the remark of 
Cassiodorus is opposed (De Instit. Div. Script., ο. 8): in epistolis canonicis 


Clemens Al., i.e., in ep. Petri prima, Joannis prima et secunda et Jacobi (or 


352 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


rather Judae) quaedam attico sermone declaravit, etc.— Cum de reliquis 
epistolis canonicis magna nos cogitatio faligaret, subito nobis codex Didymi.. . 
concessus est, etc. But as Cassiodorus expressly says in the Praefatio: 
JSerunt itaque scripturas divinas V. et N. Testamenti ab ipso principio usque ad 
Jinem graeco sermone declarasse Clementem Alex., it may be concluded from 
this that he did not possess a complete copy of the Hypotyposes, but one 
only in which several epistles of the N. T., and among these Second Peter, 
were wanting. Whilst Briickner says that the remark of Cassiodorus is 
no certain refutation of the statement made by Eusebius, Weiss declares 
himself convinced that the epistle was not commented on by Clement. — 
Neither in the writings of Tertullian nor of Cyprian is there to be found 
any trace of an acquaintance with the epistle, though both of them know 
and quote First Peter. — The epistle does not stand in the older Peshito, nor 
is it mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. Previous to Clemens Al. it is 
sought for in vain in the apostolic and in the older Church Fathers. As to 
whether in these writers certain echoes of the epistle are to be found which 
point to an acquaintance with it, Guericke, even, expresses himself very 
doubtfully: “The allusions, in the case of some of the apostolic Fathers, 
are not quite certain; but, on the other hand, Justin M., Irenaeus, and 
Theophilus, do really appear to have made unmistakable reference to it.” 
Thiersch (Ὁ. 362, D. A. Schr.) denies still more decidedly a reference in the 
earlier Church Fathers to this epistle. “The two thoughts only,” says 
Thiersch, “ ‘that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,’ and that 
‘the end of the world will come as a conflagration,’ had at a very early 
period obtained general diffusion throughout the Church;” but he himself 
shows that these two ideas did not necessarily originate in this epistle. 
Most of the recent critics agree with Thiersch. Entirely opposed to this, 
however, is the judgment of Dietlein; he fancies he finds, not only in the 
three Fathers already mentioned, but in Polycarp, Ignatius, Clemens 
Romanus, Barnabas, and Hermes, not in some few passages merely, but 
“scattered in large numbers throughout the writings of each of them,” 
indisputable references to our epistle. In his endeavor to discover these, 
however, Dietlein has failed to observe that the writers of ecclesiastical 
antiquity all drew! from the same store of conceptions, expressions, and 


1 Even with regard to Philo, Dietlein says, expressions, only the use they make of these is 
‘¢ The coincidence between Philo and the N. T. very different.’””— This remark is very just; 
and primitive ecclesiastical writers is by no but why does not Dietlein apply what he says 
means always fortuitous.— Both draw abuu- 88 to Philo to the relation between the primi- 
dantly from the same storehouse of views and tive Christian writers and those of the N. T. ? 


INTRODUCTION, " 353 


phrases, and that a correspondence must necessarily take place, without the 
dependence of any one upon another following therefrom. By far the most 
of the passages in those apostolic Fathers to which Dietlein appeals attest 
only a community of conception and expression, but not a dependence on 
Second Peter, the less so that the harmony consists almost only in accidental 
phrases and the like, and not in such ideas as are peculiarly characteristic 
of our epistle; nor has Dietlein been able to show a single sentence in 


which there is an exact verbal agreement. 


In the Epistle of Barnabas, the words, chap. xv., 7 ἡμέρα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ (that is, 
κυρίῳ) χίλια ἔτη, doubtless call up 2 Pet. iii. 8; but the thought to which they 
give expression is there entirely different from that here. 
particularly observed —to this Thiersch calls attention—that the conception 
of the days of the Messiah as a Sabbath of a thousand years is found in the 
Mischnah, Tractat. Sanhedrin, 97b, in connection with Ps. xc. 4; as, also, that 


Besides, it must be 


the authenticity of the Epistle of Barnabas is by no means so certain as Dietlein 
presupposes. — All the other passages in this epistle to which Dietlein appeals 
(especially in chaps. i. and ii., in the salutation and the conclusion of the 
epistle) show points of similarity only, which by no means prove the existence 
of definite references.!— So, too, with the passages from the Epistle of Clemens 
Romanus (chap. vii. init., comp. with 2 Pet. i. 12 and iii. 9; chap. viii., comp. 
with 2 Pet. iii. 9, 16, 17; chap. ix., comp. with 2 Pet. i. 17, etc.; chap. xi. with 
2 Pet. ii. 6, 7, etce.), and from that of Polycarp (chap. iii., comp. with 2 Pet. iii. 


15, 16; chap. vi. fin., and vii. init., with 2 Pet. iii. 2, etc.).2 Had Polycarp 


honestarum Dei 


Is it because the application is in no way dif- 
ferent ? But, according to his own account, 
the material which the former drew directly 
from the latter was often applied in a very 
diverse manner; and though the difference 
here be not so great as in the above case, it is 
only natural it should be so, if the different 
circumstances be considered. 

1 When Barnabas, in the introduction to his 
epistle, thus states the purpose of it: ἵνα μετὰ 
τῆς πίστεως τέλειαν ἔχητε καὶ THY γνῶσιν, this 
Β0 entirely corresponds with the contents of 
the epistle that he certainly cannot have made 
Second Peter his guide; that he makes use of 
the verb σπουδάζειν is all the less objectiona- 
ble, that the word is a very common one. The 
enumeration of the virtues (chap. ii.) is en- 
tirely different from that which occurs in 
2 Pet. i. 5-8, and the words ‘‘magnarum et 


aequitatum abundantiam 
sciens esse in vobis” have a very feeble simi- 
larity to τὰ μέγιστα ἡμῖν καὶ τίμια ἐπαγγέλματα 
δεδώρηται, 2 Pet. i. 4, especially as the connec- 
tion of thought is of quite another kind. 

2 Dietlein finds specially in Clement a mass 
of references to Second Peter; but it is here 
precisely that the way in which he strains the 
most natural phrases and expressions becomes 
apparent. There is no foundation for the 
assertions that the expression ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἐσμεν 
σκάμματι (which the words καὶ 6 αὐτὸς ἡμῖν 
ἀγὼν ἐπίκειται follow) bad its origin, by asso- 
ciation of ideas (!), in the ἐφ᾽ ὅσον εἰμὶ ἐν τούτῳ 
τῷ σκηνώματι of Peter; that Clement was 
stimulated by Peter to write the remarks in 
chap. vii. and xi.; that when he wished to 
account for the very special reverence in which 
Paul was held, he, in doing so, did not act 


854 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


really been acquainted with Second Peter, and had he wished to refer to it, it is 
impossible to understand why he does not quote even one sentence from it 
literally, as he certainly does from First Peter. — Still less than that of the 
above-mentioned Fathers is the dependence of Ignatius on Second Peter capable. 
of proof, even in a single passage. —As regards Justin Martyr, the earlier 
critics have traced back the expression in the Dialog. cum Tryph., 6. 89 (p. 308, 
Morelli’s edition): συνήῆκαμεν γὰρ τὸ εἰρημένον, ὅτι ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς χίλια ἔτη, εἰς τοῦτο 
συνάγειν", to 2 Pet. iii. 8 as their original source ; but the words here have the 
same meaning as in the Epistle of Barnabas, and, besides, differ still more 
markedly from those of Second Peter. —Indeed, Justin himself seems to hint 
that the words are not taken from an apostolic writing, for he cites them as a 
saying not unknown to Trypho, whilst he expressly mentions the book of the 
N. T., from which a quotation immediately following is taken: καὶ ἔπειτα (i.e., 
‘‘and then,” i.e., ‘and further’) Ἰωάννης... ἐν ἀποκαλύψει... προεφῆτευσε. ---- 
Subsequently, indeed, Justin designates the false teachers as wevdodiddoxado (a 
word which occurs, no doubt, in the N. T. only in Second Peter), and that, 
similarly as in 2 Pet. ii. 1, in connection with the false prophets among the 
Jews; but this need occasion no surprise, since in after times the name was not 
uncommon, and the application of it must have suggested itself at once to him 
in conversation with a Jew.—Nor in Hermas either is there any quotation, 
properly so called, from Second Peter. Still, appeal has been made to various 
expressions (in Vis. iii. 7, iv. 8) which no doubt may be traced back to that 
epistle; and yet more is this the case in Vis. vii. Whilst, however, Wiesinger 
admits the dependence on Second Peter, and Brickner is inclined to agree with 
him, Weiss remarks, that in the Greek text, now brought to light, the supposed 
references in Hermas lose every semblance of similarity. On the other hand, 
Hofmann maintains that in Sim. vi. ec. 2 ff., the peculiar connection of τρυφῇ 
with ἀπάτη, etc., as also the singular calculation, for how long a time pain would 
follow one day of luxurious living, can only be explained by a reference to 
Second Peter; and, further, that the vision of the seven virtues (Sim. iii. ο. 8) 
could have had 2 Pet. i. 5-7 as a pattern. Both of these assertions are very 
questionable. —In Theophilus (Ad Autol.) it is two passages principally that 
recall our epistle; in the one it is said of the prophets (1. II. c. 11, ed. Wolfii, 
Hamb., 1724): of δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι πνευματοφόροι πνεύματος ἁγίου Kal προφῆται 


γενόμενοι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐμπνευσθέντες καὶ σοφισθέντες ἐγένοντο θεοδίδακτοι καὶ ὅσιοι 


without reference to 2 Pet. 11}. 156} By what does so, as also to his controversy with the 
right are expressions such as ὑπακοή, μετάνοια, heretics who denied the ἀνάστασις. Yet here, 
δικαιοσύνη, ταπεινοφροσύνη, etc., stamped as too, it is presupposed that similarities are due 
peculiarly Petrine ? — Dietlein aitaches special entirely to direct reference; and, moreover, no 
importance, both to the fact that Polyearp account whatever is taken of the relation in 
mentions Paul, and to the manner in which he which Volycarp stood to Clement. 


INTRODUCTION. 300 


καὶ δίκαιοι; in the other (1. II. ec. 1) with reference to the Logos: 7 διάταξις τοῦ 
Θεοῦ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν οἰκῆματι ovvexouévw, The simi- 
larity of the former passage with 2 Pet. i. 21, and of the latter with 2 Pet. i. 18, 
is indisputable; but that the one had its origin in the other remains certainly 
doubtful, the points of difference being not less marked than those of agree- 
ment. The conception formed of the prophets is in both cases the same, no 
doubt, but it was also the view generally prevalent, and is found even in Philo; 
cf. the exposition of 2 Pet. i. 21; the manner of expression, too, is not a little 
different. As regards the other passages, it must be observed that there is 
agreement neither in the figure employed (ἐν οἰκήματι συνεχομένῳ instead of ἐν 
αὐχμῆρῳ τόπῳ), nor with respect to the object spoken of. — In Irenaeus the thought 
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years is again found, and that in 
two passages (Adv. Haeres., v. 23 and 28), but in neither of them is it hinted 
that the words are taken from an apostolic writing. If it had not its origin in 
some collection of proverbs then in circulation, it is very probable that Irenaeus 
borrowed it from Justin, since he too uses the expression: ἡμέρα κυρίου (not παρὰ 
xupiw). — Dietlein, indeed, thinks that instances of reference on Irenaeus’ part 
to Second Peter may be richly accumulated, the more the finding of them is 
made an object of study (!). But Irenaeus nowhere mentions the epistle, nor 
does he anywhere make a quotation from it, —a circumstance more surprising 
in his case than in that of Polycarp, if he really knew the epistle, and considered 
it to be an apostolic writing. Cf. Brickner, Einl., § 4. 


The result of an unbiassed examination is, that in Ignatius there are to 
be found no references to Second Peter; in Clemens Rom., Barnabas, and 
Polycarp, none in any way probable; in Justin Martyr, Hermas, and The- 
ophilus, none certain; and, further, that Irenaeus cannot be looked upon as 
a guaranty for the existence and authority of the epistle in the Church. ΤΕ, 
then, the apostolic Fathers had already made use of this composition, more 
especially in the manner in which Dietlein holds that they did, it would be 
impossible to explain not only how the doubts, spoken of by Origen, arose, 
but also the circumstance that the epistle is mentioned neither by Tertullian 
nor by Cyprian. Dietlein’s assertion, that the older Fathers of the Church, 
in making more frequent reference to the Pauline Epistles than to the 
Petrine, did, in doing so, but follow the hints which Peter himself gave in 
chap. iii. 15, 16, explains nothing: for, on the one hand, no such hint is 
contained in that passage; and, on the other, the first epistle must have 
shared the same fate as the second, which is not the case. — Thiersch, as 
already remarked, whilst admitting that it cannot be proved that any of the 
early Church Fathers made reference to Second Peter, at the same time 


356 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


allows that none of the reasons which explain the subordinate position held 
by the Antilegomena as compared with the Homologoumena, are applicable 
to this epistle. He is therefore driven to account for the fact that this 
epistle was not included among the subjects of regular anagnosis, by saying 
that this was due to the fear lest a too-early disclosure— as made in his 
words of thunder (?) — of the evil, in its whole scope, would have had the 
effect of hastening on the outbreak of it, more especially at a time when all 
minds were being stirred to their very depths, as was the case when the 
canon of the Homologoumena was fixed. But this reason is in itself very 
improbable, for there could certainly have been no better weapon against 
the advancing evil than the word of an apostle, and especially of Peter. 
Thus, too, the reflection is cast upon Peter, that he was here wanting in true 
apostolic wisdom, inasmuch as he composed an epistle which could have no 
other than a disturbing influence. And what, then, is to be said of Jude, 
who made into a special epistle the sharpest passages, and those likely to 
exercise that influence most strongly ! 

The circumstance that the epistle is not mentioned by the earliest Fathers 
of the Church remains all the more surprising, when it is considered how 
important the polemic it contains against errors of the worst kind must 
have made it appear to them. Wiesinger thinks that the exception taken 
to it by Hieronymus on linguistic grounds (see below), as well as the dog- 
matic objections raised to it, would be less likely to recommend for use an 
epistle so special in its contents. But opposed to this is—(1) That if the 
churches to whom it is addressed did receive it from Peter, they would 
hardly have compared it in the matter of style with the first epistle; (2) 
That it affords no ground for dogmatic objection; (3) That the special 
character of its contents is precisely of such a nature as to promote its use, 
rather than to be an obstacle in the way of it. Weiss justly maintains that 
the question, how it can be explained that there are no certain traces of the 
epistle in the second century, is as yet unsolved, in that what has been urged 
in the way of solution by the defenders of the genuineness, is in a great 
measure arbitrary and insufficient. 

After the time of Eusebius, the epistle was generally treated as canonical; 
yet Gregory of Nazianzum already says (Carm. 33, ver. 35): καθολικῶν ἐπισ- 
τολῶν τινὲς μὲν ἑπτὰ φάσιν, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς μόνας χρῆναι δέχεσθαι; and Hieronymus (S. de 
Script. Eccl., c. 1), who himself holds the genuineness of the epistle, remarks 
that its Petrine origin is denied by most, and withal propter styli cum priore 
dissonantiam. — Although it was not in the Peschito, Ephraem Syrus made 
no doubt as to its genuineness; meantime, and notwithstanding, doubt long 


INTRODUCTION. 307 


maintained itself in the Syrian Church, as may be seen from the words of 
Cosmas Indicopleustes (Christ. Topographia, lib. vi.): mapa Σύροις δὲ εἰ μὴ ai 
τρεῖς μόναι ai προγεγραμμέναι οὐχ εὑρίσκονται, ᾿Ιακώβου καὶ Πέτρου καὶ ᾿Ιωάννου " ai ἄλλαι 
γὰρ οὔτε κεῖνται παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς. 

In the Middle Ages all doubts were silenced, but at the time of the Refor- 
mation they immediately revived. Erasmus already said that, juzta sensum 
humanum he did not believe that the epistle was the composition of Peter ; 
and Calvin is of opinion that there are several probabiles conjecturae, from 
which it can be concluded that the epistle is the work rather of some one 
other than Peter. — The older Lutheran dogmatists are not inclined to insist 
positively on its genuineness, on the ground that the church does not possess 
the power, quod possit ex falsis scriptis facere vera, ex veris falsa, ex dubiis et 
incertis facere certa, canonica et legitima (Chemnitz, Ex. Conc. Trid., ed. 1615, 
Francof., p. 87 ff.). 
obliterate, more and more, the distinction between homologoumena and 


Although the later writers on dogmatics gradually 


antilegomena, and our epistle in ecclesiastical use is treated increasingly as 
a canonical writing, yet doubt did not wholly disappear. Indeed, since 
Semler it has grown to such an extent that Schwegler (D. Nachapost. Zeitalt., 
Bd. 1, p. 491) feels warranted in saying: “From Calvin, Grotius, Scaliger, 
and Salmasius, to Semler, Neander, Credner, and De Wette, the voices of 
all competent authorities have united in doubting and rejecting it.” — This 
is, however, saying too much, for there has never been any want of compe- 
tent authorities to defend its genuineness. Still, the general voice had cer- 
tainly become always more unfavorable to the epistle, — till in recent times 
new defenders of its authenticity appeared.1_ Many critics hold that genuine 
and spurious parts may be distinguished in the epistle; thus Berthold in his 
Einl. z. N. T., and C. Ullmann in his work, Der 2 Brief Petri kritisch 
untersucht, Heidelb., 1821. The former regards the second chapter as spu- 
rious, the latter the third also. 


the fact that not the second chapter alone, but likewise several passages of 


The first of these two views is refuted by 


the third, bear a similarity to Jude’s epistle; and against that of Ullmann are 


1 As. defenders of its authenticity may be 
specially named, Nitzsche (Zp. Petri posterior 
auctori suo imprimis contra Grotium vindi- 
cata, Lips., 1785), C. C. Flatt (@enuina secun- 
dae ep. Petri origo denuo defenditur, Tub., 
1806), J. C. W. Dahl (Ve Authentia ep. Petri 
poster. et Judae, Rost., 1807), F. Windisch- 
mann (Vindiciae Petrinae, Ratisb., 1836), 


A. L. C. Heydenreich (Zin Wort zur Ver- 
theidigung der Aechtheit des 2 Br. Petri, 
Herborn, 1837), Guericke (who in his Beitrdge 
had expressed doubts as to the authenticity) ; 
besides these Pott, Augusti, Hug, etc.; and in 
most recent times, Thiersch, Stier, Dietlein, 
Hofmann, Luthardt, Wiesinger, Schott, Weiss, 
Steinfass; Briickner is not quite decided. 


308 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


the circumstances that the first chapter has by no means the character of a 
completed whole, while, as § 2 proves, there is a firm line of thought running 
through the epistle, and binding into a unity its several parts, from begin- 
ning to end. 

In discussing the question of the authenticity of our epistle, it will be 
necessary to consider its relation to First Peter. If this latter be held to 
be spurious, there is of course no need of any further investigation; for, 
appealing as the second does to the first, it must share its fate. But since 
First Peter must be regarded as genuine, a comparison of it with our epistle 
is of the highest importance. 

The doubts as to the authenticity of the second epistle, which result 
from a comparison of the two writings with each other, are founded not on 
a dissonantia styli only (Hieron.), but also on a diversity (although not a 
contradiction) in the mode of conception. No doubt those who call the 
authenticity in question have not unfrequently gone too far in the produc- 
tion of alleged differences, but that such do exist cannot be denied. Of 
these the following are the most important: The prominent feature in 
both epistles is, indeed, the parousia of Christ, but the manner in which it is 
spoken of is in each different: in the first epistle, the prevailing conception 
is the ἐλπὶς; in the second, on the other hand, it is the éxiyywou, — the former 
expression not occurring in the second epistle, nor the latter in the first. 
In the first epistle, the day of the second advent is looked upon as imminent: 
in the second, mention is indeed made of a sudden, but not of the near 
arrival of that day; rather is it expressly indicated as possible that it would 
not come till farther on in the future. In the first epistle, the chief stress is 
laid on the glorification of believers which shall accompany the return of 
Christ; in the second epistle, prominence is principally given to the catas- 
trophe which shall overtake the whole creation in connection with the 
advent, that is, to the destruction of the old world by fire, to give place to 
the new heaven and the new earth. In addition to this, the advent is in the 
first epistle designated by the word ἀποκάλυψις, and in the second by παρουσία. 


The existence of this difference cannot, as opposed to Hofmann too, be 
called in question. Even if, as Wiesinger strongly urges, the passage iii. 14, 15, 
indicate that the parousia will be the glorification of believers, still the form 
under which this is represented as taking place is different from that of the 
first epistle. When Schott asserts that ‘‘the second epistle in no way, and 
least of all ‘ expressly,’ alleges the possibility of a later realization of the parou- 
sia,’’? the statement loses its justification in presence of verse 8. Weiss’s 
objection, that by ἐπίγνωσις is not to be understood a “‘ theoretical knowledge 


INTRODUCTION. 859 


perfecting the Christian life,” is out of place here, for ἐπίγνωσις and ἐλπίς are 
certainly different ideas; and even if Weiss be correct in saying that the expec- 
tation of the near parousia is not abandoned in the second epistle, the differ- 
ence in question would not be removed. 


Whilst in the first epistle the saving truths of the death and resurrection 
of Christ form the basis of the ἐλπίς and of the Christian’s moral life, in the 
second epistle these are nowhere mentioned. Nor in the latter epistle is 
there any trace to be found of the ideas peculiar to the former (cf. Intro- 
duction to the epistle). And, on the other hand, the conceptions character- 
istic of this epistle, as the view expressed in chap. i. 19; further, the idea 
of the κοινωνία with the divine nature secured by means of the ἐπαγγέλματα, 
and the belief that the world was framed by God, and would perish again 
by fire, — are nowhere hinted at in the first epistle. 


These remarks, too, maintain their full force against the objections taken to 
them; for the question here is not as to how these differences (not contradic- 
tions) are to be explained, on the assumption of an identity of authorship, but 
as to the fact, which cannot be called in question, that they actually do exist. 
Is it beside the question for Schott, in reply to the remark that in the second 
epistle the death and resurrection of Christ are not mentioned, to adduce a 
mass of citations from it for the purpose of showing, what is no doubt true, that 
the person of Christ is very decidedly brought forward as the guaranty of a 
completed salvation, and the efficient origin of a holy walk; and all the more 
that, in proportion as the person of Christ is insisted upon, the stranger does it 
seem that an apostle like Peter should pass over those facts in silence ? 


As regards the style and mode of expression in both epistles, it should not 
be left unnoticed that Peter’s literary character, as seen in his first epistle, 
is not, like that of Paul or John, so sharply defined and original that each 
of his productions reveals its authorship. And just as little must it be for- 
gotten, that the first epistle in many passages recalls the epistles of Paul, 
that the second is, to no inconsiderable extent, dependent on Jude, and that 
consequently the peculiar character of Peter’s style is difficult to determine, 
the more so that his writings are only of small extent.1 Still many lin- 


1 In opposition to what is said above, Schott from Eph. ii. 19; ἀποφυγόντες . . . φθορᾶς, 
maintains not only that the Epistle of Jude is i. 4, from Rom. viii. 20 ff.; and the passage i. 
dependent on Second Peter, but also that 12 ff. from Rom. xv. 14, ete. The epistle, fur- 
Second Peter contains echoes of the Pauline ther, is supposed to show a special dependence 
Epistles. He thinks that ἰσότιμος, 1. 1, arose on the Pastoral Epistles, i. 8-11 being only aw 


800 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


guistic differences are to be found, which even in Hieronymus’ time 
It is not to be denied 
that the freshness of expression of the first epistle, and its richness in com- 


attracted attention, and which cannot be overlooked. 


binations of thought, are here wanting. Whilst in the first epistle one 
thought follows directly upon another in lively succession, the connection 
in the second epistle is not unfrequently effected by means of conjunctions 
which point back to what precedes, or by a formal resumption of what had 
previously been said; cf. chap. i. 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, iii. 7,10, 12. And whilst, 
too, in the first epistle there is a richness and variety in the use of prepo- 
sitions expressive of manifold relationships, a conspicuous uniformity in this 
respect prevails throughout the second epistle. Many peculiarities which 
are characteristic of the diction of the first epistle (cf. Introd. to first epistle, 
§ 2), are foreign to the second. In the use also of several single expressions 
there is an established difference: κύριος, when used without more precise 
definition, is in the second epistle a designation of God, cf. chap. ii. 9 (11), 
111. 8, 9, 10; in the first epistle,on the other hand, except in quotations from 
the O. T., it is used of Christ, cf. chap. ii. 3,18. In the first epistle the 
name Χριστός, when not joined with Ἰησοῦς, is frequently treated as a proper 
name, cf. i. 11, 19, ii. 21, iii. 16, 18, iv. 1, 13, 14, v. 1; in the second epistle, 
on the other hand, Χριστός never occurs except in connection with ᾿Ιησοῦς. 
And these divergences are all the more fitted to excite surprise, if, as Hof- 
mann assumes, the second epistle was written very soon after the first. 


1. The objection raised against the last remark, that the combination of 
Χριστός with ᾿Ιησοῦς occurs also in the first epistle (Weisinger, Schott, Briickner), 
is without force, since this is not, and never could have been, denied. And it 
signifies equally little that, as Hofmann shows, in the second epistle (with the 


adaptation of Tit. ii. 12-14, ete. Schott attaches 
particular importance to this, that leading and 
fundamental ideas in the epistle are employed 
in the same prominent manner only here and 
in the Pastoral Epistles, as εὐσέβεια, εὐσεβής, 
ἀσεβής, σωτήρ, σώζειν, μιαίνω With its family, 
ἐπίγνωσις, βλασφημεῖν, ἐπαγγέλλομαι; a de- 
pendence, too, on the Epistle to the Hebrews 
he considers hardly less evident. — All these 
assertions, however, are unwarranted. As a 
matter of course, there are ideas expressed in 
Second Peter which correspond to those con- 
tained in other epistles; but this arises from 
the oneness of the Christian faith, and is no 


proof of a special reference to any of those 
epistles. As regards the individual leading 
and fundamental ideas of the Pastoral Epistles 
and of Second Peter, adduced by Schott, ἀσεβής 
(ἀσεβεια) is to be found equally in the Epistle 
to the Romans; σωτήρ occurs in other N. T. 
writings; σώζειν is not used in Second Peter, 
and as little is μιαίνω ; ἐπίγνωσις and βλασφη- 
μεῖν are terms which are to be found often 
enough in the N. T.; ἐπαγγέλλομαι in 2 Pet. 
ii. 19, has not the meaning which it has in First 
Timothy; the terms εὐσεβής, εὐσέβεια alone, 
are almost the only ones which are peculiar to 


these epistles. 


INTRODUCTION. 361 


exception of i. 1) Imo. Χριστός also is never to be found alone, but always in 
connection with ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν, etc., since it cannot be denied that Χριστός is used 
by itself — often in the first, but never in the second epistle. — Of still less con- 
sequence are the remarks of Hofmann as to the use of κύριος. When Schott 
asserts that Χριστός, with or without the article, wherever it stands in the first 
epistle, denotes the Mediator as such, but that in the second epistle there is 
nothing to lead to the mention of the Mediator, it must be remarked in reply, 
that in the second epistle Christ is designated as the Mediator distinctly enough 
by the name σωτῆρ. 

2. Besides the differences here mentioned, Mayerhoff brings forward many 
others. In doing so, however, he has gone much too far. Thus, he lays stress 
on the fact that in the first epistle the exhortations are commenced concisely 
with the imperative; in the second, on the other hand, with a circumlocutory 
expression, e.g., i. 12, 13, 15, iii. 1, 2, 8. But in the first epistle, the latter 
manner of beginning could not occur, inasmuch as the apostle does not there 
remind his readers of what they had formerly heard from him, as he does in 
the second epistle; nor, in the second epistle, is the imperative without circum- 
locution by any means wanting. Further, Mayerhoff speaks of it as peculiar 
to the second epistle, that év is inserted with a substantive, as in chap. i. 4; yet 
the same takes place in the first epistle. Of many of the phenomena which are 
supposed to be peculiar to the first epistle, Mayerhoff himself admits that they 
are to be found also in the second, only less frequently. To the assertion that in 
the two epistles the conception of the Christian religion is not the same, it must 
be replied, that the various expressions denote the different sides of the Christian 
life. As against Mayerhoff, cf. the discussions of Schott, Brickner, Weiss. 


No doubt their diversity in thought may be traced to a difference in the 
tendency of the two epistles, nor is the diction either of the second by any 
means unjustifiable;1 yet it does appear strange that, if Peter wrote this 
letter from the situation on which the second epistle is based, he should 
have done so in such a manner that it would present so many diversities 
in character from that of the first epistle. Nevertheless, there are between 
the two writings many points of coincidence which cannot be overlooked. 
In both attention is directed chiefly to the parousia of Christ, and to 
preparation for it by a holy walk. In both the readers are expressly 
shown that to be Christians, as they were, is to be in the right and true 
state of salvation, and they are exhorted at once to give proof of it by a 


1 It is only these two points, here distinctly the different characters of the two epistles, to 
expressed, which Hofmann brings forward in the view that both are the productions of the 
order to remove all objections, arising from same author. 


902 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


holy behavior, and to confirm themselves in it. Both epistles, further, have 
this in common, that they are strongly dependent on the O. ‘[. (on this see 
Schott and Weiss). In the mode of expression, also, there are to be found 
many points of coincidence. Thus it may be noted that in i. 4 the ideas 
καλεῖν and ἀρετῇ are connected together in a manner which, though not 
identical with 1 Pet. ii. 9, is yet similar to it; that as in 1 Pet. i. 19, the 
adjectives ἄμωμος and ἄσπιλος stand together, so in 2 Pet. ili. 14, ἄσπιλος and 
ἀμώμητος are conjoined, with which also the expression, ii. 13: σπῖλοι καὶ μῶμοι, 
corresponds; that the word ἀπόθεσις is to be found only in these two epistles. 
It is also worthy of remark that the introductions and the conclusions in 
both the epistles show an unmistakable likeness. The commencement 
points, in the case of each, to the future kingdom of God; 1 Pet. i. 4: 
εἰς κληρονομίαν ; 2 Pet. i. 11: εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν ‘Ino. Χριστοῦ; and as at 
the close of First Peter the purpose of the letter is stated by the παρακαλῶν, 
k.7.4., V- 12, so in Second Peter the design of the composition is given by 
φυλάσσεσθε. . αὐξώνετε, where the φυλάσσεσθε. . . ἵνα μὴ ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου 
στηριγμοῦ corresponds in a particular manner with the στηρίξαι and the 


ἐπιμαρτυρῶν, ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθὴ χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰς ἣν ἑστήκατε, in First Peter. 


Like the opponents of the authenticity in bringing forward differences, its 
defenders have not unfrequently overstepped all bounds in the production of 
supposed points of coincidence. Of this Schott has been especially guilty. He 
goes so far as to say that even 2 Pet. i. 1 ‘‘ is an armory from which all doubts 
concerning the Petrine origin of the second epistle are repelled,” an’ every- 
where, wherever in thought or conception any resemblance between the two 
epistles is to be seen, he seeks to show that the second makes reference to the 
first, without in any way distinguishing what in conception is Christian and 
common from what is characteristic and peculiar; and Brickner has accordingly 
justly protested against many of the arguments advanced by Schott. But even 
‘Weiss often goes too far, as when, with reference to the doctrine of redemption, 
he maintains that the ideas of calling and of election in 2 Peter (i. 10) seem to 
be synonymous as in 1 Peter, whilst the fact is, that no such combination 
occurs in the latter epistle; when he compares the κοινωνία θείας φύσεως (2 Pet. i. 4) 
with the thought that the calling is the motive to become like unto him who 
calls, after 1 Pet. i. 15; when he thinks that the dea δύναμις of Christ, which 
gives all that is necessary for the new life, corresponds with the divine δύναμις, 
which preserves unto salvation (1 Pet. i. 5); further, when he lays stress on the 
fact that in both epistles, the δικαιοσύνη constitutes the central point of Chris- 
tian moral life, whilst elsewhere also in the New Testament the essence of such 
life is often enough expressed by δικαιοσύνη; when he considers that the falling 


INTRODUCTION, 863 


a prey to φθορά (2 Pet. i. 4, ii. 12, 19) recalls the antithesis between φθαρτόν and 
ἄφθαρτον in the first epistle; when he states that in the second epistle (i. 7) the 
φιλαδελφία forms the climax of the Christian virtues in harmony with 1 Pet. i. 22, 
since there it is not φιλαδελφία, but ἀγάπη which is spoken of as the climax, and 
φιλαδελφία is also made prominent elsewhere in the N. T. With regard to the 
doctrinal phraseology, Weiss, in the first instance, adduces a number of points 
of divergence, and then lays stress on the fact that many, and in part striking, 
points of agreement are to be found. But here, again, Weiss goes too far; the 
most of the substantives, adjectives, and verbs which he brings forward as 
significant of the agreement of the two epistles, being in current use in N. T. 
language. As regards substantives, with the exception of ἀρετῇ, the term γνῶσις 
(1 Pet. iii. 7 and 2 Pet. i. 5) only can be adduced as of importance, for τιμῆ and 
δόξα occur elsewhere together; in like manner τέκνα, in a metaphorical sense, is 
to be found elsewhere; it is plainly incorrect to say that δύναμις in 2 Pet. ii. 11 
is used of angels as in 1 Pet. iii. 22; in the latter passage it denotes the angels 
themselves, but not so in the former. How the adjectives adduced by Weiss 
should ever have a special significance, it is not easy to see, used as they often 
enough are elsewhere. The same is the case with most of the verbs; dvaorpé- 
φεσθαι ἐν and αὐξάνειν ἐν at most can be brought forward as of importance in this 
connection. And in referring to kindred expressions, Weiss again goes too far. 
The following at most are to be noted here as worthy of attention: ἰσότιμος in 
the second, and πολύτιμος in the first; ἄθεσμος there, ἀθέμιτος here; the already 
mentioned ἄσπιλος καὶ ἀμώμητος in the first, and ἄσπιλος καὶ ἄμωμος in the second, 
but hardly ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας and πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας. 


In spite of all points of accord, real and asserted, the verdict of Weiss 
comes only to this, that if these be taken into account, there will be an 
inclination to see in the divergences no hinderance to an identity of author- 
ship; that the points of agreement are more than those of divergence; and 
that the old complaint as to the complete difference of style was founded 
on very great exaggeration. Similar, though more moderate, is the judg- 
ment of Briickner. Schott, however, expressly admits that the outward 
form of the second epistle as a whole shows, at first sight even, quite other 
features from those of the first epistle. The question as to how the 
undeniable difference in thought and expression is to be explained, has 
been variously answered. On the assumption of the authenticity of the 
epistle, it will not do to explain the difficulty by supposing that Peter wrote 
‘in advanced old age, and when at the very gate of death” (Guericke), for 
the period between the composition of the first and the second epistles can 
have been, comparatively speaking, only a brief one, at most four years — 


364 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


a time certainly too short to account for the difference. J[Jlieronymus tries 
to make the dissimilarity of style intelligible by assuming that Peter made 
use of different interpreters for each of his epistles. But this hypothesis 
of the use of interpreters is without any valid reason, and, besides, is 
inadequate to the end it is meant to serve. It is certainly more correct to 
find the ground of the diversity in the different tendencies of the two 
epistles. The purpose of the first is to lay down to the readers their true 
course of conduct in the midst of the persecutions they had to suffer; that 
of the second, on the other hand, is to protect them against the heresies of 
the Libertines which threatened them.! These different tendencies must 
naturally lend to each of the epistles its own peculiar character. Yet even 
Schott admits that this alone is insufficient for the solution of the problem. 
Schott thinks it can be solved only in this way: that Peter in his first 
epistle, “for the sake of his readers—to whom he was unknown —and in 
his own interest, of set purpose kept his individuality assiduously in the 
background, and sought with the utmost possible fidelity all through the 
epistle to write in a manner to which the Geutile Christians and the Pauline 
churches were accustomed. For this reason he elaborated his first epistle 
with special care, even as to form; but after he had entered into near 
personal relations with his readers, he had not the same occasion as in the 
first epistle to keep his own individuality out of sight.” This manner of 
answering the question under discussion, which Weiss justly calls “ hyper- 
artificial,” needs certainly no refutation. As, then, the difficulty is not to 
be removed either by separating, with Weiss, the two epistles by an interval 
of more than ten years,—for the assumption that the first epistle was 
written before the letters of the Apostle Paul to the churches of Asia 
Minor, is an untenable hypothesis, —it must be admitted, with Briickner 
and Weiss, on the supposition of the authenticity, that there is presented 
here a problem which has not yet been satisfactorily solved. And the 
difficulty is increased if it be considered that in the two epistles quite 
different conditions of the churches are presupposed; for, whilst in the 
first there is no trace of any dread of heretical trouble, there is wanting 


1 Hofmann thinks that the different tenden- exposed, or who already had appeared in their 
cies of the two epistles are erroneously stated midst.’’ Both assertions are false. To what 
here. He holds that the first epistle contains is said above must be added only, that the two 
““ nothing as to what are usually termed perse- epistles, relating as they do to different cir- 
cutions of Christians,’ and that in the second cumstances, point to the exhortation to lead 
epistle there is “πὸ warning against teachers ‘*an holy and godly life.’ 
of false doctrine, to whom the readers were 


INTRODUCTION. 365 


in the second all reference to persecutions to which the readers were 
exposed, —a circumstance which is not to be passed over so lightly as 
Hofmann does. 


The shorter the time between the composition of the two epistles, the more 
surprising is this phenomenon; the longer, the easier is it of explanation. For 
Weiss, who assumes an interval of over ten years, there is here hardly any diffi- 
culty, more especially as he thinks that Peter, after the composition of the first 
epistle, was personally present in the churches, and in that case did not need to 
mention the persecutions which had induced him to compose his first letter. 
Briickner reserves for himself a way of escape from the difficulty caused by this 
and other surprising phenomena, by holding that as to the close of Peter’s life the 
received tradition may be wrong. Schott, on the other hand, attaches no impor- 
tance to these divergences, although in his opinion the first epistle was written 
in the year 65, and the second in the year 66. For he assumes, on the one hand, 
that when Peter wrote his second epistle the persecutions were past; and, on the 
other, that even in the first there are references to errors already present, which 
Peter, ‘‘from his tender and fine feeling of the delicate relation in which he 
stood to a Pauline church as yet in reality unknown to him,” did not wish 
expressly to censure. Both assumptions are erroneous; for the persecutions 
which were the occasion of the first epistle are there clearly characterized as 
persecutions which, after they had arisen, continued (see Introd. to Ep. 1); and 
as regards the heresies supposed to have been in existence when the first epistle 
was composed, Weiss justly remarks: ‘‘ There is nothing to be discovered in it, 
either of the connection with the heresy combated in the second epistle, which 
Brickner artificially brings out, nor of its clearly marked features, which Schott 
professes to have found.’”’ It is not in any way to be inferred from the First 
Epistle of Peter, as Schott asserts, ‘‘ that it shows a greater spread and inward 
intensity of the evil combated in the Epistle to Timothy,” or that 1 Pet. iv. 2-4 
attests that ‘‘a comparatively large section of the readers was prepared, by a 
liberal concession to immorality in social life, to gain undisturbed security for 

themselves as professing Christians;”’ or that in iii. 18 ff., iv. 5, 6, 17, 18, it is 
hinted ‘‘ that the spiritualistic explaining away of the resurrection of the flesh 
led the readers to deny also a final judicial decision connected with the return 
of Christ in the body.’’ Schott, in what he here says, is moving, not on the 
ground of true exegesis, but in the region of the most arbitrary fiction. 


The less success has attended all efforts to overcome the difficulties 
which, on the assumption of the authenticity, lie in the relation of the two 
epistles to each other, the more justifiable does doubt as to the authenticity 
appear. It has, no doubt, been asserted that a falsarius would have 
followed the first epistle so closely as to have avoided these differences; 


366 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


but it is equally conceivable that a pseudonymous author could have 
written under the influence of Peter’s epistle indeed, yet still in his own 
peculiar style, and without being anxiously careful lest the origin of his 
composition should thus be betrayed. On this assumption the existence 
both of similarity and divergence is explained. Several considerations 
have been urged against the authenticity of the epistle: — 

1. The intention of the author to make himself known as the Apostle 
Peter. To this it may be replied, that, looked at from the situation in which 
the epistle was written, and which it presupposes (i. 13, 14), this so-called . 
intention is neither unnatural, nor need it excite surprise. If Peter, 
conscious of his approaching death, felt himself impelled to write a last 
word to the churches with which he had before this become connected, 
reminding them of his former preaching, and warning them against doubts 
as to the second coming of Christ, it was certainly not out of place for him 
to mention himself, his relation to the churches, and more especially that 
event in his own life by which the glory of Christ was revealed to him in a 
manner so special. 2. The remark the author makes on the epistles of 
Paul and the other Scriptures. In itself, the fact is not strange that the 
epistle bears testimony to an acquaintance with the epistles of Paul, for 
that some of the latter were known to Peter is evident from the first 
epistle; nor do the words (chap. iii. 16) imply that the author possessed 
a formally completed collection of them. But the expression: ὡς καὶ τὰς 
λοιπὰς γραφάς, is certainly striking. For although it is arbitrary to under- 
stand by it the whole of the other books of the New Testament, yet the 
expression must have reference to writings which were already in general 
use in the churches. It is at least open to question whether this could have 
been said, in Peter’s time, of writings of the New Testament. Several 
interpreters (Luthardt, Wiesinger) understand by the term the oldest 
writings; on this point see the exposition. 3. The use made of the Epistle ᾿ 
of Jude. It is certainly going too far to brand this as a plagiarism 
(Reuss); nor can it be said that to make use of another’s work was in 
itself unworthy of an apostle. Still, it is surprising that an apostle should 
have incorporated in his epistle, as to the substance of it, a non-apostolic 
letter.1 De Wette’s accusations are, however, unjust: that in Second Peter 


1 Weiss takes a too low estimate of the use from this intentional connection, an expres- 
made of Jude’s epistle when he says: ‘‘Sec- sion may involuntarily here and there have 
ond Peter intentionally seeks support in the presented itself to the author’s pen from an 
highly realistic and vivid description given by epistle 80 important, and which he had proba- 
Jude of his opponents; and that, even apart bly just read.” 


INTRODUCTION. 367 


the simple expression of Jude is partly changed by rhetorical and artificial 
circumlocution, partly disfigured and singularly superseded, and that a 
vacillating line of thought takes the place of one firm and definite. The 
circumlocutions and additions of Second Peter do not bear on them the 
character of artificialness. If alterations in the latter composition are to 
be found (cf. Jude 12, with 2 Pet. ii. 13; Jude 12, 13, with 2 Pet. ii. 17), 
these cannot be said to be distortions (or, according to Schwegler, confusion 
and misunderstanding); and if the original course of ideas be not firmly 
maintained owing to the introduction of new relations (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 5, 7-9), 
and a transposition be resorted to (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 13-17, comp. with Jude 
11-13), yet the firmness of the line of thought does not in any way suffer 
thereby. Incorrect, too, is De Wette’s assertion, that “ the heretics combated 
in Second Peter are mere nonentities, and a spurious copy of the seducers 


in Jude;” as also that of Schwegler, that they are characterized not after 
life, not from direct knowledge of them, but according to the vague repre- 
sentation of tradition. Not, however, without weight is the circumstance 
on which De Wette lays stress, that the false teachers are represented at 
one time as about to appear in the future, at another as already present. 
Wiesinger rejects the view, that while in ii. 1-3 the future seducers are 
meant, ver. 10 ff. has reference to those already present; and assumes that 
the future ἔσονται applies only to the relation of these seducers to the readers, 
and their work among them. Weiss combats this assumption, and in oppo- 
sition to it defends that rejected by Wiesinger. If it be conceivable that 
the Libertines already present are “the beginning of the end,” and there- 
fore not yet the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, ver. 1, still it must not fail to be observed 
that in the epistle itself no single word definitely points to any such distinc- 
tion. Even less satisfactory is it to say, with Dietlein, that the first germs 
of opposition were already in existence; or, with Luthardt and Schott, to 
hold that if the author speaks of the false teachers as already present, he 
does so only in appearance, arising from the circumstance that he passes 
from the prediction to the description of them. It may perhaps be most 
correct to assume that the author, in the first instance, quotes the prophetic 
word in and for itself simply; and that he afterwards, in the description of 
the Libertines already in existence, hints that the predictions had begun to 
be fulfilled. Briickner seems to hold.a similar opinion; only he unites this 
view with that of Wiesinger, and thus deprives it of its necessary clearness. 
— If the authenticity be rejected, the difficulty seems to disappear. It would 
then lie to hand to explain the vacillation by saying, that the author thought 
to combat the heresies of his time, with better result, by representing them 


368 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


as already predicted by Peter, and by allowing himself, in the description of 
them, to be guided by a composition in which they were treated as actually 
But it can hardly be conceived that the author should fail to 
perceive how incongruous his conduct was. — Worthy of remark, further, 


in existence. 


is the endeavor of the author to obliterate all apocryphal traces to be found 
in Jude. The total omission of these would have argued nothing against 
the Petrine authorship; but it is only the words of Enoch (Jude 14, 15) that 
are left out. The passage relating to the angels: τοὺς μὴ τηρήῆσαντας . . . οἰκη- 
τήριον, is—inasmuch as the case of the angels must not be omitted — changed 
into the more general: ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων, whilst the punishment that 
befell them is given in almost the same words. The reference to the apoc- 
ryphal narrative of the contest between the Archangel Michael and the Devil 
is likewise not wholly destroyed, but only effaced,—a more general term 
being employed, which, however, causes the thought itself to lose its clear- 
ness and precision.” 

4. The heretical denial of the second advent of Christ, and of the final 
judgment of the world connected therewith. Although, already in Paul’s 
lifetime, many errors in the teaching as to the last things — as, for example, 
the denial of the resurrection—had begun to grow up, there is nothing 
in the other writings of the New Testament to show that the parousia of 
Christ was called in question; yet the denial of it is so naturally con- 
nected with that of the resurrection, that it could quite easily have found 
On the other hand, it cannot 
be questioned that the reasons assigned by the false teachers (2 Pet. iii. 4) 


expression even while Peter was yet alive. 


are such as seem to belong rather to a time later than that of the 
Apostle Peter, although the words by no means imply that the parousia 
had for many generations already been looked for in vain (Schwegler). 
And, further, there are the facts that the so-called Second Epistle of 
Clemens Romanus combats the same heresy, — although in an advanced 


1 Schwegler sees in this also a proof that 
the epistle was not written until the end of the 
second century, inasmuch as the dislike to 
quote apocryphal writings was still foreign 
even to an Irenaeus, a Clement, or an Origen. 
If importance must be attached to this, the 
epistle plainly cannot have been written till 
after the time of Origen, which is impossible. 

3 Wiesinger and Briickner think that 
Enoch’s prediction of judgment was omitted 
only because there was no appropriate place 


for it in the connection of thought in this 
epistle, and that the change in the two verses, 
4 and 11, does not show a desire to efface what 
is apocryphal; that Peter only generalized the 
special fact mentioned by Jude, ver. 9, pre- 
supposing at the same time an acquaintance on 
the part of his readers with the apocryphal 
incident referred to. But does not such a 
presupposition contain what must appear un- 
suited to an apostle ? 


Ἱ 


INTRODUCTION. 369 


state of development, —and that one similar, at least, is mentioned in the 
Epistle of Polycarp. 

5. The view expressed in this epistle as to the origin and the destruction 
of the world. - The opinion of Mayerhoff and Neander, that this view “is 
in harmony neither with the practical, simple mind of Peter, nor with the 


” 


N. T. development of doctrine,” reaches certainly too far; it can only be 
said that it does not find expression elsewhere in the New Testament. Yet 
the conception that the world arose into being out of the water by the word 
of God, points back to the history of creation in Genesis; and that of its 
destruction by fire, though not indeed expressed, has nevertheless the way 
prepared for it in passages of the O. T., such as Isa. xvi. 15, Dan. vii. 9 sq. 
(cf. 1 Cor. iii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 8), so that a more precise development of it 
by Peter is not inconceivable. In opposition to the appeal to the passage 
in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 24: λογισάμενος ὅτι τὰ πάντα τὸ ὕδωρ ποιεῖ, K.T.AL, 
Briickner remarks that it must not be overlooked that in Clement it is water, 
and in Peter God’s word, to which precedence is given. 


When Credner thinks to prove the spuriousness of the epistle by saying that 
an apostle would never have made reference to one of the mythical additions in 
the Gospels like the narrative of Christ’s transfiguration; and Reuss, by assert- 
ing that ‘‘ the apparent aim of the epistle is to defend the teaching as to the 
last things, according to the Judaeo-Christian conception of it, and that as 
much against unbelief as against a spiritualizing interpretation,’’ — their views 
must be simply rejected. Not less unjustifiable is it, however, for Bleek to base 
his verdict of rejection on the circumstance that ini. 18 the mount of transfig- 
uration is called τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἅγιον, inasmuch as the place is not even mentioned in 
the Gospels, or more nearly described. 


If the numerous difficulties and doubts above mentioned do not render 
the authenticity of the epistle absolutely impossible, many of them are yet 
of such a nature that the spuriousness of the epistle appears to be hardly 
less probable-than its genuineness, especially as the only positive evidence 
for the latter is the statement of the author himself, that he is the Apostle 
Peter. On the other hand, many reasons seem to speak against its pseudo- 
nymity. Guericke insists that the passages characteristic of the epistle are, 
“living, spiritual, and truly apostolic;” but, apart from the circumstance 
that, e.g., the want of any reference to the essential facts of salvation does 
seem strange in the case of the Apostle Peter, this in no way excludes the 
possibility of a non-apostolic origin. He further says that it is not apparent 
what purpose a falsarius could have had in writing; but this is refuted by 


910 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


the epistle itself, which clearly enough states its design. Further, it has 
been remarked that the epistle, if it be written under a false name, is a 
palpable fraud, and to this its own moral character is opposed. But, in 
reply to this, the fact may be brought forward that men of earnest moral 
character have often thought more effectually to combat heresy by assuming 
a pseudonyme. Thiersch asserts that it was in the period which followed the 
labors of Paul, and preceded those of John, that that Libertinism made its 
appearance in the Pauline churches; but from this it does not follow that 
the heresy did not maintain itself for a considerable time, so that after Jude 
had already combated it in his epistle, a later attack on it would have been 
no longer timely. 

Weiss, too, has attempted to prove the hypothesis of a pseudonyme unten- 
able. 


diction; for the author appears to play his réle at one time cleverly, at 


He urges, in the first instance, that it is afflicted with an evil contra- 


another very awkwardly, inasmuch as, with all his endeavors to make him- 
self pass for the apostle, he sometimes forgets his part, and thus betrays his 
pseudonymity ; and, whilst the connection with Jude is made in full har- 
mony with his design, it is carried out in direct opposition to it. Weiss in 
his remarks has omitted to observe, that, like many of the opponents of the 
authenticity too, he attributes to the author various intentions, which the 
words of the epistle in no way entitle him to do.1 Again, Weiss seeks to 
show that, on the assumption of a pseudonymous author, there is no uniform 
purpose discoverable in the epistle. But as far as its purpose is concerned, 
it is irrelevant whether the epistle was composed by the apostle or not. If 
the three passages in the epistle—the polemic against the Libertines de- 
scribed according to the Epistle of Jude, that against the deniers of the 
parousia, and the recommendation of Paul’s writings —form a united whole, 
it is not clear how they should do so less if they had an author other than 
Peter. 


for the composition of the epistle if it be pseudonymous. 


Finally, Weiss seeks to show that no suitable time can be adduced 
But this difficulty 
is not less than that which arises in specifying the time in the life of Peter 
when he wrote the epistle; and if it be difficult to show how a pseudony- 


1 The author is supposed to have forgotten tial reasons, omitted to name the class of read- 


his part, from this circumstance, that whilst 
in the beginning of it he does not name a 
special class of readers, in order thus to hide 
the interpolation of his epistle, he indirectly 
mentions them in iii. 1. But there is no proof 


that the author intentionally, and for pruden- 


ers whom he addressed. The same holds good 
with regard to the assertion that he intention- 
ally chose the prophetic form, ii. 1 ff. and iii. 
3, in order that this epistle might contain the 
prophecy to which Jude in ver. 17 refers. 


INTRODUCTION. 3871 


mous composition could have found acceptation in the church, it is not less 
hard to explain how a genuine composition of the Apostle Peter could have 
If, then, 
the grounds for and against the authenticity are thus evenly balanced, there 


remained for so long a time unused in the service of the church. 


is here presented a problem which is not yet solved, and which perhaps can- 
not be solved, so that the guardedness with which Briickner, Wiesinger also, 
and even Weiss, with all his inclination to regard the epistle as genuine, 
express themselves on the question, deserves only acknowledgment. 

If the epistle be not genuine, the question arises by whom, when, and 
where it was written. — Mayerhoff seeks to show that it was composed by a 
Jewish Christian in Alexandria in the middle of the second century. That 
the author was a Jewish and not a Gentile Christian, the whole character of 
the epistle shows; but that he lived in Alexandria, cannot be concluded 
The date, too, to which 
he assigns the composition of the epistle, is certainly too late, inasmuch as 


from the reasons brought forward by Mayerhoff.? 


the description of the heretics contains no reference to Gnostic views prop- 
erly so called. It would be more appropriate to look upon it as a production 
of the first century. —Schwegler considers Rome to have been the place, 
and the end of the second century, at the earliest, the time of the epistle’s 
composition. In Rome, he thinks, endeavors were made, by carrying out a 
Petrinism and a Paulinism, to realize the idea of the Catholic Church. In 
Rome, therefore, it was that—like so many other writings which have 
reference to these two schools — this epistle was composed. Its object —an 
entirely conciliatory one —is this, as is evident from chap. iii. 15, 16, and 
i. 14, 16 ff., “to bring about from the standpoint of Petrinism a final and 
permanent peace between the opposing views of the followers of Peter 
and those of Paul.” 
peculiarities of the Petrine system are apparent throughout the epistle, 
But if a doubt 


arise even here as to how a so decided follower of Peter — who, according to 


In confirmation of this, Schwegler asserts that the 


whilst that which is specifically Pauline entirely recedes. 


1 These reasons are: (1) The standpoint of 
γνῶσις, and the speculation as to how the 
world originated, and how it will be destroyed. 
But the γνῶσις spoken of in our epistle is 
entirely different from the γνῶσις of Alexan 
drine-Jewish speculation; and that the view 
here expressed as to the beginning — unjustly 
called a speculation — of the world, had its 
origin precisely in Egypt, is not proved. (2) 
The use made of the Epistle of Jude; but that 


the latter was composed in Alexandria is at 
least very doubtful. (3) The coincidence be- 
tween this epistle and the so-called Second 
Epistle of Clement of Rome, in opposing the 
same heretical tendency; but, as there is no 
proof that the quotation occurring in this epis- 
tle was taken from the εὐαγγέλιον κατ᾽ Αἰγυπ- 
tious, it is also doubtful whether this fragment 


had its origin in Egypt. 


372 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


the view of Schwegler, must as such have necessarily stood in opposition 
to him—could have been the eulogist of Paul, it must excite most legiti- 
mate astonishment to see what are the reasons he brings forward in support 
of his view.1_ The evidence, too, which he leads for the late date of compo- 
sition, possesses no value. The chief point, the so-called conciliatory tend- 
ency of the epistle, is a pure hypothesis, which has no support in the epistle 
itself; for neither in the passages quoted by bim, nor in any others, are the 
differences between Petrinism and Paulinism touched upon, much less ad- 
justed or surmounted. No doubt Paul is spoken of in terms of praise; but, 
according to the connection of the passage, only for the purpose of warning 
the churches to which the epistle is addressed, lest they should be led astray 
by the heretics, who wrested and changed many statements of the apostle 


for their own purposes. 


1 These reasons are: the employment of 
expressions peculiar to Judaeo-Christian modes 
of thought: εὐσέβεια, ἅγιαι ἀναστροφαί, ἀρετή, 
ἁγια ἐντολή, κιτ.λ. (but almost all these ex- 
pressions are to be found in the N. T. writ- 
ings, which, according to Schwegler, favor 
Paulinism) ; the high place given to the λόγος 
προφητικός (as if Paul had set little value on 
it); the countenance given to angelological 
mysticism (which he thinks is proved by chap. 
ii. 10, 11!); the demand for a tradition as a 
standard in the interpretation of Scripture 
(said to be contained in chap. i. 20!); ὄγδοος 
κήρυξ δικαιοσύνης, as applied to Noah; and 
the reference to the Gospel of the Hebrews 
(in support of which chap. i. 17 is quoted). 

2 Thus, when, among other things, Schweg- 
jer brings forward as a reason for this, the 
writer’s acquantance with such N. T. Scrip- 
tures as he supposes to have been composed 


only after the middle of the second century, 
i.e., the Pastoral Epistles, the Gospels of John 
and of Mark. He concludes that the author 
was acquainted with the Pastoral Epistles 
from the fact that some expressions occur only 
in these, and in the epistles of Peter; as also 
with the Gospel of John, by asserting that 
the writer, in chap. i. 14, had the passage, 
John xxi., 18, 19, in his mind; and, finally, 
with the Gospel of Mark, by supposing that 
chap. i. 12-15 contains allusions to that gos- 
pel (!). 

3 Heydenreich rightly observes: ‘‘ For that 
(conciliatory) purpose, the little which chap. 
iii. says in passing of Paul would not have 
sufficed; if the writer had been chiefly anxious 
to show such a union, he would have adapted 
the construction and contents of the whole 
epistle to the conciliatory design.” 





CHAP. I. 918 


Πέτρου ἐπιστολὴ β΄. 


According to A and B, the Inscriptio is simply: Πέτρου β΄. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. Συμεών]. B, several min., and vss. read, according to the usual form, 
Σιμών (Lachm.), which is evidently an alteration. — Ver. 3. After A, κα, etc., 
Tisch. 8 reads, τὰ πάντα, instead of the Rec. πάντα, according to almost all 
authorities (Lachm., Tisch. 7).— διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς]. A, C, P, δὲ, many min., 
Copt., Arm., Vulg., ete., read, ἐδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ, which Griesb. thinks probable; 
accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., approved of by the modern commentators and 
Reiche; the Rec. in B (Buttm. has, however, put a ? to B), K, L, al., Thph., 
Oec., appears to be a correction. — Ver. 4. The Rec. is: τὰ μέγιστα ἡμῖν καὶ τίμια: 
this occurs only in some min., however much the position of the single words 
varies in the different Codd., ete. Buttmann has, following B: τὰ τίμια κ. μέγ. 
ἡμῖν, Lachm. and Tisch. 7, following C, read: τὰ μέγιστα καὶ τίμια ἡμῖν; so, too, 
A, only instead of ἡμῖν, ὑμῖν, Tisch. 8, following K, L, δὲ, and many min., has 
accepted τὰ τίμια ἡμῶν καὶ μέγιστα. It cannot be determined which reading is the 
original one. — ἐν κόσμῳ]. Rec., according to C, K, several min., Thph., Oec. 
(Tisch. 7); on the other hand, A, B, L, δὲ, etc., attest ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (Lachm., Tisch. 
8).— Ver. 5. αὐτὸ τοῦτο dé]. Rec., sufficiently corroborated by B, ΟἿ, K, L, P, 
al., pl., Syr., Oec.—In ΟΕ, 8, several min., Thph., there is αὐτὸ de τοῦτο. 
Lachm., according to A, reads αὐτοὶ dé, which can only be considered a cor- 
rection. Tischendorf has rightly retained the Ree. Schott arbitrarily supposes 
that the original reading might be: καὶ αὐτοὶ τοῦτο dé. —Ver. 8. Instead of 
ὑπάρχοντα, which is attested by almost all authorities, Lachm., according to A, 
Vulg., etc., has accepted παρόντα, which probably arose from the subsequent 
mapeott, —Ver. 9. ἁμαρτιῶν]. Rec., according to B, C, L, P, al., Thph., Oec. 
(Lachm.); in its place, Griesb., Scholz, Tisch., ete., according to A, K, κα, al., 
Damasc., have ἁμαρτημάτων, which most likely is the original reading; the alter- 
ation is easily explained by Heb. i. 3, as well as by ἁμάρτημα, being in the N. T. 
of rarer occurrence.— Ver. 10. σπουδάσατε βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν 
ποιεῖσθα. Rec., according to B, C, K, L, P, al., pl., Theoph., Oec., ete. 
(Tisch.); in A, δὲ, several min., and many vss., the words ἵνα διὰ τῶν καλῶν ὑμῶν 
ἔργων are inserted between σπουδάσατε and βεβαίαν (evidently a Jater explanatory 
addition), in which the inf. is changed into temp. finit., ποιεῖσθε (Lachm.; in 
the small ed., ποιῆσθε). --- Ver. 12. οὐκ ἀμελήσω]. Rec., after K, L, al., Thph., 
Oec. (Griesb., Scholz); on the other hand, A, B, C, P, &, al., Copt., Sahid., 
Vulg., etc., are in favor of μελλήσω, which is justly accepted by Lachm. and 


\ 


374 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 
| 


Tisch., approved of by De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, and Schott, whilst 


Reiche prefers οὐκ ἀμελῆσω, ut modestius et urbanius. — According to the testi- 


mony of B, C, K, L, νὰ, al., pl., several vss., etc., ἀεὶ ὑμᾶς (Griesb., Scholz, 
Tisch.) should be put in place of the Rec. ὑμᾶς ἀεὶ, following A, Vulg., etc. 
(Lachm.). — Ver. 17. Tisch. 7 reads, after B: ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου οὗτός ἐστιν, 
and remarks, with reference to the Rec. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (after A, 
C, K, L, 8, etc., Lachm.): at ita locis parall. omnib. quorum nullo οὗτ. ἐστ. 
postponitur neque Graec. ullus testis μου repetit. ‘Tisch. 8 has accepted the 
Rec. — Ver. 18. According to B, C*, etc., Tisch. 7 reads: ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει; but the 
Rec., ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ (Tisch. 8), is too strongly supported by A, C***, K, L, P, 
δὲ, al., Vulg., ever to be regarded as spurious. — Ver. 21. According to B, C, K, 
P, al., Copt., etc., Tisch. 7 has ποτέ after προφητεία, and Tisch. 8, following A, 
L, §, etc., ποτὲ before προφητεία: this order of words is the more natural, but for 
that very reason can hardly be considered the original one. — The Ree. οἱ ἅγιοι 
Θεοῦ occurs only in several min., some vss., Oec., Vulg. — A has ἅγιοι τοῦ Θεοῦ 
(Lachmin.); K, L, δὲ, al., ἅγιοι Θεοῦ (Griesb., Scholz). Tisch. has adopted in its 
place, ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, according to B, al., Syr., Copt.; Wiesinger, Schott, and Stein- 
fass prefer this reading; Briickner, too, inclines to it; no doubt it was the one 
which was most likely to give rise to alterations; still, it is too little supported 
by B, etc. Reiche considers ὕγιοι Θεοῦ to be the original reading. 


Vv. 1,2. Συμεὼν Πέτρος]. The form most in harmony with the Semitic 
language: Συμεων, as a name of Peter, is to be found, besides here, only in 
Acts xv. 14; otherwise, cf. Luke 11. 25, 111. 80; Rev. vii. 7; Acts xiii. 1. 
From the addition of the name itself, as little as from its form, can any 
thing be concluded as to the genuineness (in opposition to Dietlein, Schott, 
Steinfass) or the non genuineness of the epistle. The two names Σίμων 
Πέτρος are directly conjoined also in Matt. xvi. 16; Luke v. 8, etc.; else- 
where, too, the apostle is called Siuwy ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος. The addition of 
Συμεῶν serves to mark the author as a Jewish Christian.! —dodAo¢ καὶ ἀπόστολος 
1. Xp., cf. Rom. i. 1; Tit. i. 1 (Phil. 1.1). δοῦλος expresses the more gen- 
eral, ἀπόστολος the more special offivial relation; cf. Meyer on Rom. i. 1; 
Schott unjustly denies that δοῦλος has reference to the official relation. Ac- 
cording to De Wette, the author has here combined 1 Pet. i. 1 and Jude 1. 
— τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσι πίστιν]. ἰσότιμος is inexactly translated in the Vul- 
gate by coaequaliter ; it is not equivalent to ἔσος (Acts xi. 17: ἔση duped), but 
means, “having equal honor or worth.” De Wette’s interpretation is as incor- 
rect: “to those who have obtained the same right to participate in faith 
with us.” The use of the words tui, τίμάω, in Peter’s epistle, does not prove 
that the expression has here reference specially to the divine privileges of 
the kingdom (Dietlein). By this word the author gives it to be understood, 
that the faith of those to whom he writes, has the same worth as that of 
those whom he designates by ἡμῖν; both have received one and the same 
faith (as to its objective contents) (Briickner, Besser, Wiesinger); Hornejus: 


1 Bengel, assuming the authenticity of the conditionis pristinae, antequam cogromen 
epistle, observes not inaptly that Peter adds nactus erat.” 
Συμεών, ““ extremo tempore admonens se ipsum 


— 


CHAP. I. 1, 2. 376 


dicitur fides aeque pretiosa, non quod omnium credentium aeque magna sit, sed 
quod per fidem illam eadem mysteria et eadem beneficia divina nobis proponantur. 
— The connection shows that by ἡμῖν all Christians (De Wette) cannot be 
understood; the word must only refer either to Peter (Pott), or to the 
apostles (Bengel, Wolf, Briickner, Steinfass, Fronmiiller), or to the Jewish 
Christians generally (Nic. de Lyra, Dietlein, Besser, Wiesinger, Schott, 
Hofm.); the last is the correct application (cf. Acts xi. 17, xv. 9-11). 
Wiesinger: “That the faith of the apostles should have a different value 
from that of those who through their preaching had become believers, is an 
idea totally foreign to the apostolic age.” --- λαχοῦσι points out that faith is a 
gift of grace. Huss: sicut sors non respicit personam, ita nec divina electio 
acceptatrix est personarum (cf. Acts i. 17).—On the breviloquence of the 
expression, cf. Winer, p. 579 (E. T., 623).— ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοὺ Θεοῦ, x.7.A. ]. 
Luther translates: “in the righteousness, which our God gives,” thus 
δικαιοσύνη would here mean that gift of God’s grace which is the result of 
faith, whether it is to be understood of the state of justification (Schott), or 
the Christians’ manner of life conformed to the commandments of God 
(Briickner).. If this view be adopted, however, δικαιοσύνη cannot be con- 
nected with πίστιν, for though ἐν may be regarded as equal simply to cum, or 
be taken in the sense of, being furnished with (thus Briickner, formerly), 
it would always denote that πίστις is contained in δικαιοσύνη, Which certainly 
does not correspond with the relation in which the two stand to each other; 
faith is not bestowed on the Christian in righteousness, but righteousness in 
faith. Hofmann joins ἐν dx. directly with πίστιν, and understands by δικαιο- 
σύνη here: “the righteousness which makes Christ our Saviour; that in 
which the world has the propitiation for its sins.” This interpretation 
assumes. that Θεοὺ is predicate to ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (see below); besides, it is 
opposed by the circumstance that the context makes no allusion to any such 
nearer definition of the idea, whilst it is arbitrary to render πίστιν ἐν ux. : 
“that faith which trusts in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.” Schott, Stein- 
fass, and now, too, Briickner, connect δικ, with ἐσότιμον ; the position of the 
words, however, is opposed to this, for were ἐν δικ. the closer definition of 
ἰσότιμον, it must have been placed directly beside it. Besides, a somewhat 
obscure thought results from this combination. The simple addition of 
ἐν dx. does not assert that the faith of the one has equal value with the faith 
of the other in this, that in both cases it effects a δικαιοσύνη. δικαιοσύνη is 
here not a gift, but an attribute of God, or a characteristic of His dealings. 
Still, the expression must not be taken as equivalent either to “kindness ” 
(Eman. a Sa., Pott), or to “faithfulness,” as regards the promises given by 
Him (Beza, Piscator, Grotius) ; for although δικαιοσύνη may sometimes come 
near to the above meanings, it is never identical! with them; cf. Meyer on 


1 De Wette thinks that the author, in ap- love by which He undertook the work of sal- 
proximation to the Pauline views, may perhaps vation. But é:«.means neither grace nor love; 
have understood the righteousness of God as and, besides, it is altogether arbitrary to give 
bringing in righteousness, — or salvation, — or the expression a different meaning with respect 
as redemptive righteousness, otherwise termed to Christ from that which it has when applied 
grace ; and the righteousness of Christ, as that to God. 


876 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


Rom. iii. 25. Still less warrant is there for Dietlein’s view, that righteous- 
ness is here “as a kingdom, the totality of the divine action and revelation 
in contrast to this world full of sin and of uncompensated evil.” Wiesinger 
(and thus also Fronmiiller) understand by δικαιοσύνη, “the righteousness of 
God and Christ, which has manifested itself in the propitiation for the sins 
of the world;” in opposition to which Briickner correctly remarks, that 
Christ’s work of atonement is not an act of His righteousness; further, 
“the righteousness of God which demands the death of the sinner” (Fron- 
miiller), may be considered as causing the death of Christ, but not as pro- 
ducing faith. δικαιοσύνη, in harmony with ἐσότιμον, is rather that righteousness 
of God—opposed to every kind of προσοπωληψία --- according to which He 
bestows the same faith on all, without respect of persons (cf. Acts x. 34 f.). 
ἐν is in meaning akin to διά, but it brings out more distinctly than it, in what 
the obtaining of the πίστις icor.is grounded. The author’s thought is accord- 
ingly this: “in His righteousness, which makes no distinction between the 
one and the other, God has bestowed on you the same like precious faith as 
on us.” !—zod Θεοῦ ju. καὶ σωτῆρος ‘1, Xp.]. Many interpreters (Beza, Hem- 
ming, Gerhard, and more recently Schott and Hofmann) take τοῦ Θεοῦ ju. 
and σωτῆρος as a double attribute of Ἰησοῦ Xp. Others (Wiesinger, Brickner, 
Fronmiiller, Steinfass) separate the two expressions, and understand τοῦ Θεοὺ 
ἡμῶν of God the Father; and rightly so, although in the similar combination, 
ver. 11, 111. 18, there be but one subject. For Θεός differs from κύριος in this, 
that it is never conjoined with Χριστός as a direct attribute, whilst κύριος is 
very often thus employed, as in the very next verse; see my commentary 
to Tit. ii. 18. There need be no hesitation in taking the article which 
stands before Θεοῦ with σωτῆρος also, as a secord subject, —a statement which 
Schott and Hofmann have wrongly called in question; cf. (Winer, p. 124 
[E. T., 1901) Buttmann, p. 84 ff. (E. T., 97, 100). Dietlein, in his inter- 
pretation, adopts a middle course: “of our God and Saviour; and when I 
speak of God the Saviour, I mean the Saviour Jesus Christ.” But only this 
much is correct here, that the close conjunction points to the oneness of God 
and Christ of which the author was assured. — Ver. 2. χάρις... πληθυνθείη, 
as in 1 Pet. i. 2. In this passage ἐν ἐπιγνῶσει τοῦ Θεοῦ x. ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν 
is added. Here, too, ἐν is not cum, but states in what the increase of grace 
has its origin, and by what it is effected (De Wette). This is the knowledge 
of God and Jesus, our Lord; ef. on this John xvii. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 20. Cal- 
vin: Dei et Christi agnitionem simul connectit, quia rite non potest, nisi in Christo, 
Deus agnosci. Although the ἐπίγνωσις here spoken of includes in it acknow!l- 
edgment, yet it is erroneous to distinguish between ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις, by 
holding the former to be equivalent to acknowledgment ; cf. the further dis- 
cussions on the term ἐπίγνωσις in Wiesinger and Schott, which, however, 
especially in the case of the latter, are not without the mixing-up of thoughts 
foreign to the idea. It is wrong to interpret ἐν by εἰς; Aretius: ut colant 
Deum, quemadmodum sese patefecit in Scripturis et ut coli vult. According to 


1 Hofmann most unwarrantably maintains that, in this interpretation, ἐν is taken ‘in a sense 
which cannot be justified.” 


CHAP. I. 8. 377 


Dietlein, the thought intended to be expressed is that “grace and peace 
grow and increase from within the soul, outwards, and in thus growing they 
became ever more and more knowledge of the revealed God” (!). 

Ver. 3. The first paragraph, extending as far as ver. 11, contains exhor- 
tations. The first of these is expressed in vy. 5-7, and to it vv. 3 and 4 
serve as an introduction. —dc]. Lachmann connects ὡς directly with what 
precedes, and puts a full stop after φθορᾶς at the end of ver. 4; thus also 
Vulg., Beza, Erasmus, Hornejus, Grotius. This combination, however, is 
against the analogy of the N. T. epistles, in which the superscription closes 
with the benediction (in the Epistle to the Galatians alone a relative clause 
is subjoined, ending, however, with a doxology that marks the conclusion), 
and is also opposed to the contents of vv. 3, 4, which serve as the basis for 
ver. 5 (Wiesinger). Gerhard and others consider ὡς as equivalent to καθώς 
(which Gerhard explains by ἐπεί, i.e., “postguam” vel “ siquidem”), and 
supply οὕτως to ver. 5; arbitrarily: ὡς belongs much more to the genitive 
absolute (not pleonastically, Pott). The objective reason expressed in this 
phrase for the exhortation contained in ver. 5 is by ὡς characterized as a 
subjective motive; Winer: “convinced (considering) that the divine power,” 
etc.; Dietlein: “in the consciousness that;” so, too, De Wette, and the 
more recent commentators generally; the construction in 1 Cor. iv. 18, 
2 Cor. v. 20, is similar; cf. Matthia, Ausf. Gr., 1825, § 568, p. 1120. — πάντα 
. . . δεδωρημένης]. The Vulg. incorrectly: quomodo omnia vobis divinae virtutis 
sunt, quae ad vitam et pietatem, donata est (another reading is: sunt); and 
Luther: “since every thing of His divine power, that pertains unto life and 
godliness, is given us;” δεδωρημένης is here not passive, but middle (cf. Gen. 
xxx. 20, LXX.; Mark xv. 45), and τῆς θ. δυνάμεως does not depend on πάντα, 
but is the subject (thus all modern commentators).— According to the 
position of the words, αὐτοῦ refers back to ‘Ino. τ. κυρίου ἡμῶν (Calvin, Schott, 
Steinfass), and not to Θεοῦ; if it be applied to Θεοῦ (De Wette-Briickner, 
Wiesinger), then θείας (which occurs here only and in ver. 4; Acts xvii. 29, 
τὸ θεῖον, a8 subst.) is pleonastic. Dietlein and Fronmiiller refer αὐτοῦ to God 
and Jesus, which linguistically cannot be justified.2 — τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν]. 
The ζωὴ καὶ εὐσέβεια are not spoken of as the object, but τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν, x.7.A. For 
the attainment of the former is conditioned by the Christian’s conduct; but 
in order that it may be put within his reach, every thing is granted him 
which is serviceable to ζωῇ and εὐσέβεια (cf. Luke xix. 42: τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην cov). 
The difference between the two ideas is in itself clear; ζωῇ, “ blessedness,” 
indicates the condition: εὐσέβεια, “godliness” (except in Acts iii. 12, occur- 
ring only in the Pastoral Epistles and Second Peter), the conduct. Grotius 
incorrectly interprets ζω as equivalent to vita ALTERIUS seculi, and εὐσέβεια 


as pietas in HOC seculo. Both together they form the antithesis to ἡ ἐν κόσμῳ 


1 Hofmann, indeed, applies it also to Christ, by the fact, that otherwise this whole argument 
but by passing over ver. 2 to ver. 1, where, as would contain no reference to Him; the appli- 
already observed, he considers that it is not cation to both contains the correct idea, that 
God and Christ, but Christ alone, who is re- _ the gift imparted by Jesus is the gift of God 
ferred to. the Father. 

2 The application to Jesus is also supported 


378 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ ¢00pa. πάντα is by way of emphasis placed first, in order to show 
distinctly that every thing, which is in any way serviceable to (wu and εὑσέβ., 
has been given us by the divine power of the Lord. Hofmann is wrong in 
defining this πάντα as faith, hope, and charity, for this triad does not pertain 
πρὸς εὐσέβειαν, but is the εὐσέβεια itself. — διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς 
states the medium through which the gift is communicated to us; with 
ἐπίγνωσις, cf. ver. 2. God is here designated as ὁ καλέσας ἡμᾶς, since it is only 
by the knowledge of the God who calls us that the πάντα τὰ mp. ζ,, x.7.A., are 
appropriated by us, —the calling being the actual proof of His love to us. 
The subject to καλεῖν is not Christ (Vorstius, Jachmann, Schott, etc.), but 
God (Aretius, Hemming, De Wette, Hofmann, etc.), as almost always in the 
N. T.1 Of course καλεῖν does not mean the mere outward, but the inward, 
effectual calling. — ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ]. δύξα denotes the being, ἀρετῇ the ac- 
tivity ; Bengel: ad GLoRIAM referuntur attributa Dei naturalia, ad VIRTUTEM 
ea, quae dicuntur moralia; intime unum sunt utraque. It is arbitrary to under- 
stand δόξα as meaning: “that side the nature of the Almighty One that 
liveth, which is directed outwards,” and by dpery: “the holy loving-kindness 
of God” (as opposed to Hofmann). — The nature of God represented as the 
instrumentality, as in Gal. 1. 15: καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὑτοῦ; cf., too, Rom. 
vi. 4. A wrong application is given to the words, if they be taken as refer- 
ring to the miracles of Christ. It must be observed that this ἐπέγνωσις itself, 
too, is to be looked upon as wrought by Christ in us. 

Ver. 4 must not, as a simple intervening clause, be enclosed in paren- 
theses; for although ver. 5 is the principal clause standing related to the 
participial clause in ver. 3, still the latter is determined, in the thought of 
it, by ver. 4. — δι᾽ dv]. ὠν does not refer to the immediately preceding idia 
δόξῃ x. ἀρετῇ (Dietlein, Wiesinger, Briickner, this comment.), for it cannot be 
said that Christ has given us the ἐπαγγέλματα through the δόξα x. ἀρετῇ of His 
Father, but to πάντα τὰ πρὸς, «7.4. (Hofmann). Beza inaccurately interprets 
δι’ ὧν by ex 60 quod. — τὰ τίμια ἡμῖν καὶ μέγιστα ἐπαγγέλματα]. ἐπάγγελμα, besides 
here, occurs only in chap. iii. 19, where it is used in connection with the 
new heaven and new earth in the future. By it is to be understood, not 
the promises of the prophets of the O. C. fulfilled in Christ for us, nor those 
things promised us of which we are made partakers in Christ (Hornejus: 
bona et beneficia omnia, quae Deus per Christum offert et exhibet omnibus, qui in 
ipsum credunt; Wiesinger, Schott); but, according to ver. 12 ff., chap. iii. 4, 
ix. 13, the prophecies of the παρουσία of Christ and the future consummation 
of His kingdom, as contained in the gospel (Briickner).? Dietlein is wrong 


1 De Wette (with whom Briickner agrees) 
is accordingly wrong in supposing that τοῦ 
καλέσαντος ἣμ. Stands in place of the simple 
pron. αὐτοῦ, and is inserted because, by this 
circumlocution of the active subject, the 
address gains in matter and range. — Schott’s 
remarks, in which he attempts to justify his 
assertion that τοῦ καλέσαντος applies to Christ, 
are only in so far correct, that καλεῖν might 
indeed be understood of an activity of Christ; 


cf. Matt. ix. 13; Mark ii. 17; on the other 
hand, it is certain that ὁ καλέσας is never ap- 
plied to Christ, but always to God. 

2 Schott’s assertion, that ἐπαγγέλματα, ac- 
cording to the form of the word, must mean 
“promised things,” is opposed by chap. iii. 
13; but why the promises as such should not, 
as Wiesinger supposes, be the means of effect- 
ing the κοινωνία θείας φύσεως, it is difficult to 
understand, 


CHAP. 1. 4. 379 


in saying that ἐπαγγέλματα are not only promises of what is future, but 
announcements of what is present and eternal. He goes still farther astray 
when he substitutes for this idea the different one: “the granting of favors 
which proclaim themselves.” The word ἐπαγγέλλειν (except in 1 Tim. ii. 10, 
vi. 21) has constantly in the N. T. the meaning “to promise,” never simply 
“to proclaim.” These promises are called “ precious,” not because they are 
“no mere empty words” (Schott), but because they promise that which is 
of the greatest value (Hofmann). The dative ἡμὶν from its position should 
be connected more probably with τίμια than with δεδώρηται. --- δεδώρηται is here 
also not passive (Dietlein), but middle (all modern interpreters). Gualther 
erroneously explains it: donatae, i.e., impletae sunt. What is here referred 
to is the communication, not the fulfilment, of the promises, which are a free 
gift of divine grace. — The subject to δεδώρ. is not ὁ καλέσας (as formerly in 
this commentary), but the same as that to the foregoing δεδωρημένης. --- ἵνα διὰ 
τούτων]. Calvin, De Wette-Briickner, Hofmann, understand τούτων to refer 
to τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν, x.7.A., as the leading thought; this construction Wiesinger 
justly calls “a distortion of the structure, justifiable only if all other refer- 
ences were impossible.” Incorrect also is the application to dot καὶ ἀρετῇ 
(Bengel). From its position it can apply only to ἐπαγγέλματα (Dietlein, Wie- 
singer, Schott), and not in like manner to δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ (Fronmiiller). διά 
has here its proper signification, not equal to “because of them” (Jachmann), 
nor to “incited by them;” as elsewhere the gospel is spoken of as the ob- 
jective means through which the divine life is communicated, so here the 
ἐπαγγέλματα, Which, according to the conception of Second Peter, form the 
essential element of the gospel. — γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, not “that ye 
may become partakers,” but “that ye might be,” etc. (Wiesinger). The aorist 
shows that the author does not look upon the κοινωνία, which for the Chris- 
tian is aimed at in the bestowal of the promises, as something entirely future 
(Vorstius: quorum vi tandem divinae naturae in illa beata immortalitate vos quo- 
que participes efficiemini), but as something of which he should even now be 
partaker.1 The thought that man is intended to be partaker of the divine 
nature, or to be transfigured into the divine being, — which is accomplished 
in him through faith in the promises, —is, though in other terms, often 
enough expressed in the N. T. (Heb. xii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 23; John i. 12, 13, 
and many other passages). Hemming justly remarks: vocat hic divinam 
naturam id quod divina praesentia efficit in nobis, i.e., conformitatem nostri cum 
Deo, seu imaginem Dei, quae in nobis reformatur per divinam praesentiam in 
nobis. When Hofmann urges the expression φύσις against this view, because 
a distinction must be drawn between the φύσις of man and the personal life 
of man, the former remaining even in him who is regenerate always the 
same, until this σῶμα is changed from a σῶμα ψυχικόν to. a σῶμα πνευματικόν, he 
fails to observe that it is not the human, but the divine φύσις that is here 
spoken of, and in God there can be no difference made between natural and 


1 Hornejus: ‘“incipit ea in hac vita per magis illic erimus per adspectum et si hie per 
gratiam, sed perficietur in altera per gloriam; gratiam id adipiscimur, quanto magis illic 
si enim jam hic in ista imbecillitate divinae per gloriam, ubi Deus ipse erit omnia in 
naturae consortes sumus per fidem, quauto omuibus.” 


τ 


980 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


personal life. The expression φύσις is here quite inappropriately pressed by 
Hofmann. As opposed to the mystic “deification,’ it must be remarked, 
with the older interpreters, that the expression φύσις conveys the thought, 
not so much of the substantia, as rather of the qualitas. Grotius’ interpreta- 
tion dilutes the idea: ut fieretis imitatores divinae bonitatis. The second per- 
son (γένησθε) serves to appropriate to the readers in particular that which 
belongs to all Christians (juiv).1— ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν (τῷ) κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ 
φθορᾶς]. These words do not express the condition on which the Christian 
becomes partaker of the divine nature, but the negative element which is 
most intimately connected with the positive aim. Accordingly, the trans- 
lation is incorrect: “if you escape” (Luther, Briickner) ; ἀποφυγόντες is to be 
translated “escaping, eluding;” the aor. part. is put because the verb is 
closely conjoined with the preceding aorist γένησθε. It is to be resolved into: 
“in order that ye might be partakers of the divine nature, in that ye escape 
the φθορά." 2 With φθορά, cf. chap. ii. 12, and especially Rom. viii. 21; Gal. 
vi. 8 (see Meyer on the last passage). By it is to be understood not simply 
perishableness, but more generally corruption. The term φθορά is here more 
nearly defined as 7 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ φθορά, i e., the corruption which dwells in the 
(unredeemed) world, and to which all thereto belonging is a prey. The 
further more precise definition : ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ, states that this φθορά has its origin 
in the evil lust, opposed to what is divine, which has its sway in the world 
(1 John ii. 16, 17). —azog., here 6. gen.; chap. ii. 18, 20, cum accus. constr. 
— The sequence of thought in vv. 3, 4, is: Christ hath granted us every 
thing that is serviceable to salvation and holiness, and that by the knowl- 
edge of God who hath called us by His glory; through it he has given us 
the most glorious promises, the design of which is the communication of the 
divine life. 

Vv. 5, 6. καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δέ]. Kal... δέ, equivalent to “but also,” “and 
also;” cf. Winer, p. 412 f. (E. T., 448); Buttmann, p. 312 (E. T., 364). 
καί adds something new to what goes before; dé brings out that what is 
added is to be distinguished from what precedes.?— Neither mepi nor κατά 


1 Hofmann arbitrarily objects to this inter. 
pretation, that a change of persons could not 
take place in a clause expressive of a design; 
rather does it simply depend on the will of the 
writer, where he wishes it to take place. 
When the writer of a letter wishes to state the 
purpose of any thing which has been imparted 
to all, should he not in particular apply it to 
those to whom he addresses his letter ? — 
Auguati strangely presses the change of per- 
sons by applying ἡμῖν to the Jews, γένησθε to 
the heathen converts, and understanding θεία 
φύσις of the divine descent of the Jews. 

2 Bengel: ‘‘haec fuga non tam ut officium 
nostrum, quam ut beneficium divinum, com- 
munionem cum Jeo comitans, h. 1. ponitur.’’ 
Dietlein: ““ἀποφ. contains no demand and 
condition, but only the other side of the fact: 
Ye have entered the kingdom of the divine 


nature, therefore ye have left the kingdom 
of the worldly nature.” — By transferring 
γένησθε to the future, Schott gives an er- 
roneous (linguistically) interpretation of ἀπο- 
φυγόντες as future also: “Ye shall become 
partakers of the divine nature, as such who 
have (shail have) precisely thus escaped 
τῆς +» - φθορᾶς." 

8 Hofmann, without any reason, ascribes 
two different meanings to cai... δέ, by say- 
ing, that “«ac... δέ is either equal to ‘but 
now,’ or else to ‘ but also;’ in the first case 
καὶ adds something further, which δὲ points 
out to be something different, and must be 
added to what precedes by way of explana- 
tion; in the second case δε adds something dif- 
ferent, and καὶ intimates that it is added on to 
what precedes, which cannot do without it.” 
kat... δέ has in itself always the same sig- 


CHAP. I. 5, 6. 881 


nor πρός is to be supplied to αὐτὸ τοῦτο, which stands here absolutely, equiva- 
lent to δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο : “for this very reason,” cf. Winer, p. 134 f. (E. T., 142), 
and refers back to the thought contained in ὡς πάντα. . . δεδωρημένης, and 
further developed in the clauses following: “since ye have been made par- 
takers of all that, therefore,” ete. Grotius: Deus fecit quod suum est, vos 
quoque quod vestrum est faciele. Dietlein takes αὐτὸ τοῦτο as a simple accusa- 
tive dependent on ἐπιχορήσατε (thus also Steinfass); but this combination, 
which would make τοῦτο refer to the subsequent ἐν τῇ π. by. τὴν ἀρετῆν, or to 
τ. ἀρετῆν alone, is opposed by the αὐτό beside it, which looks back to what 
has gone before. Nor does Dietlein fail to see this, for he explains: “the 
announcements given are now to: be produced in the form of Christian 
virtues ;” this, however, results in a “straining” (Brickner) of the thought. 
—As regards the connection of clauses, the apodosis belonging to ver. 3 
begins with ver. 5, not, however, in quite regular construction. Hofmann, 
on the other hand, holds that the apodosis conveying the exhortations begins 
already with iva in ver. 4. He looks upon iva as depending on ἐπιχορηγήσατε, 
and considers that the two participial clauses, ἀποφυγόντες, «7... and kal... 
παρεισενέγκαντες, are to be closely connected with each other, and both to- 
gether joined with the imperative; accordingly he translates: “ Considering 
that His divine power hath given us all that is serviceable to life and godli- 
ness . . . ye should, in order thereby to become partakers of the divine 
nature, having escaped the corruption in the world occasioned by lust, but for 
that very reason giving all diligence, supply virtue in and with your faith.” 
But opposed to this view is: (1) The intolerable cumbrousness of the con- 
struction; (2) The circumstance that although a dependent clause may 
precede the clause on which it depends, this may take place only when the 
clearness of the style does not thereby suffer, i.e., when the periods are so con- 
structed that the dependent clause cannot, by any rule of language, be taken 
with a preceding clause,—but this is plainly not the case here; (3) The 
aorist γένησθε, instead of which the present would have been written; and 
finally, (4) The impossibility of here applying διὰ τούτων to any thing that 
goes before. This becomes the more obvious if the preceding secondary 
clause be considered as standing after the imperatival clause ἐπιχορηγῆσατε 

. ἀγάπην. ----σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισενέγκαντες, cf. Jude 3: πᾶσαν on, ποιούμενος 
(Jos., Arch. xx. 9. 2: εἰσφέρειν σπουδήν), παρά points out that believers on 
their side (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott) should contribute their part, 
namely, the σπουδῇ, to what has here been given them. That παρά has not 
here the implied idea of secresy, is self-evident; but it is also unjustifiable 
when Hofmann asserts that παρεισφέρειν σπουδῆν means “the application of 
diligence, which endeavors after something already given in a different man- 
ner.” — émiyopnyhoate ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν τὴν ἀρετῆν]. ἐπιχορηγεῖν, either “ contrib- 
ute,” i.e., your contribution to the work of salvation (De Wette), or more 
probably, according to the use of the word elsewhere in the N. T. (2 Cor. 
ix. 10; Gal. iii. 5; cf. also 1 Pet. iv. 11), “to supply” (Briickner, Wiesinger, 


nification; δέ only emphasizes the new element ent one from what goes before, or altogether 
added by xai, whether this be merely a differ- antithetical to it. 


882 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


Hofmann); it is here placed as correlative to the term δεδώρηται, ver. 4, and 
denotes “the gift which the believer gives in return for the gift of God” 
(Wiesinger, although the meaning of the word does not quite justify him in 
doing so, adds: “or more accurately, by which he again presents to God his 
own gift in the fruit it has produced”). Dietlein’s interpretation is erro- 
neous: “to perform in dance.” This meaning the word never has. Even 
χορηγεῖν sometimes means “to lead a dance,” but not “to perform any thing 
in dance.” The original meaning of émyop, is: “to contribute to the ex- 
penses of a ydpoc.” Schott’s assertion is arbitrary, “that ἐπιχορηγεῖν signifies 
a supplying of what is due to one in virtue of an official or honorary posi- 
tion.” — Pott incorrectly explains the preposition ἐν by διά; De Wette inade- 
quately by “in, with, of that which is already present, and to which something 
else should be added.” The sense is: “since you have πίστις, let it not be 
wanting in ἀρετῇ." It is not meant, that to the πίστις, as something different 
from it, ἀρετῇ should be added ; but ἀρετῇ belongs to πίστις, and for this reason 
the Christian must put it into practice. The same relation is preserved in 
the members which follow.1 ior is presupposed as the origin (Oecume- 
nius: θεμέλιος τὼν ἀγαθῶν καὶ κρηπίς) of all Christian virtues, and in the first 
instance of the ἀρετῇ, by which Oecumenius understands τὰ ἔργα ; Gerhard: 
generale nomen omnium operum et actionum bonarum: Calvin: honesta et bene 
composita vita; it is best explained by strenuus animae tonus ac vigor (Bengel): 
“moral efficiency” (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.).2—éy δὲ τῇ ἀρετῇ τὴν 
γνῶσιν]. ἣ γνῶσις is not here ἡ τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποκρύφων μυστηρίων εἴδησις (Oecum.), 
nor is it “the knowledge of God which the Christians possess” (Dietl.) ; 
but as the matter in hand here is the practical proof of the Christian temper, 
it must be understood as denoting the perception of that which the Christian 
as such has to do in all relations of life, and of how he has to do it (Besser, 
Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Briickner, in agreement with this: “discre- 
tion”).2— Ver 6 The three virtues here named are: the ἐγκράτεια, the 
ὑπομονῇ, and the εὐσέβεια. --- ἐγκράτεια, besides here, in Acts xxiv. 25 and Gal. 
vi. 22 (Tit. i. 8: ἐγκρατῆς; 1 Cor. vii. 9, ix. 25: ἐγκρατεύομαι), denotes the 
control of one’s own desires; τὸ μηδενὶ ἀποσύρεσθαι πάθει (Oecumenius) ; οἷ. on 
Tit. i. 8.4. Compare this with the passage in Jes. Sir., xviii. 30, where under 
the superscription ἐγκράτεια ψυχῆς there is the maxim: ὀπίσω τῶν ἐπιθυμιὼν σου 
μὴ πορεΐου, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀρέξεών σου κωλύου. --- ὑπομονῇ is enduring patience in all 
temptations. Besser aptly recalls the proverb: abstine, sustine. — With 


1 Steinfass remarks: “ἐν conceives the present employed; still that expression does 


accusatives as involute accusatives, and as 
elements of the previous datives;” this cer- 
tainly is correct, but must be supplemented 
thus far, that the element of the preceding 
conception, expressed by the accusative, stands 
forth as a special grace, and thus becomes, as 
it were, the complement of it. 

2 Hofmann: “ that disposition which shows 
itself in the doing of what is right and good.” 

3 Besser is undoubtedly right in trying to 
prove that Luther’s ‘‘ modesty ’’ has another 
signification than that in which the word is at 


not altogether coincide with γνῶσις, which 
Luther understands as meaning that ‘‘ cireum- 
spectness’’ which knows how to maintain the 
right moderation in all things. 

4 Hofmann unwarrantably disputes this in- 
terpretation by saying that ἐγκρ. is ‘‘ that 
quality by which a person denies himself all 
that is unprofitable; ” for the denying one’s self 
that which is unprofitable, for which there is 
no desire, surely gives no proof whatever of 
ἐγκράτεια. 


CHAP. I. 7. 883 


εὐσέβεια, comp. ver. 3; Dietlein, without sufficient justification, explains it 
here as “the godly awe and respect in the personal, domestic relations of 
life." If εὐσέβεια do not apply only to our relation to God (e.g., Dio Cass., 
xlviii. 5: διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν εὐσέβειαν), the other object of it must in this 
case be definitely stated. 

Ver. 7 adds φιλαδελφία and ἀγάπη to the virtues already named. These 
are to be distinguished thus, that the former applies specially to the Chris- 
tian brethren, the latter to all—without distinction; 1 Thess. iii. 12: ἡ ἀγάπη 
εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας (Gal. vi. 10); with φιλαδελφια, cf. 1 Pet. i. 22. While 
the apostle calls the love which is extended to all ἀγάπη, he gives it to be 
understood that what he means is not the purely natural well-wishing, but 
Christian love springing from the Christian spirit. Dietlein, without suf- 
ficient reason, thinks that φιλαδελφία is only the opposite of that which is 
forbidden in the eighth and ninth commandments, whilst the ἀγάπη is the 
complete antithesis to what is forbidden in the tenth commandment. In 
this way the conception φιλαδελφία is unjustifiably disregarded, —a proceed- 
ing to which the language of Scripture gives the less sanction, that where 
love in all its depth and truth is spoken of, the word φιλεὶν is not unfre- 
quently used; ef. John v. 20, xvi 27, etc. — Although the different virtues 
here are not arranged according to definite logical order, yet the way in 
which they here belong to each other is not to be mistaken. Each of the 
virtues to be shown forth forms the complement of that which precedes, and 
thus gives rise to a firmly-linked chain of thought. ἀρετῇ supplies the com- 
plement of πίστις, for faith without virtue is wanting in moral character, and 
is in itself dead; that of ἀρετῇ is γνῶσις, for the realizing of the moral volition 
is conditioned by comprehension of that which is needful in each separate 
case; that of γνωσις is éyxpareca, for self-control must not be wanting to voli- 
tion and comprehension; that of ἐγκράτεια is ὑπομονῇ, for there are outward 
as well as inward temptations to be withstood; that of ὑπομονὴ is evoeBea, for 
only in trustful love to God has the ὑτομονή firm support; that of εὐσέβεια the 
φιλαδελφια, for “he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can 
he Jove God whom he has not seen?” (1 John iv. 20); that of gAadeAgia the 
ἀγάπη, for without the latter the former would degenerate into poor narrow- 
heartedness. Thus, in that the one virtue is the complement of the other, 
the latter produces the former of itself as its natural outcome; Bengel: 
praesens quisque gradus subsequentem parit et facilem reddit, subsequens priorem 
temperat ac perficit.! 


1 According to Dietlein, the three first the Creed, and the third grace of that triad. 
graces, including πίστις, correspond to the Certainly there is here a good deal that coin- 
first table of the law, the three first petitions cides, but this by no means warrants a consist- 
of the Lord’s Prayer, the first article of the ent parallelism of all the individual points, 
Creed, and to faith in the Pauline triad; the which can only gain an appearance of correct- 
three following graces, to the first half of ness by an arbitrary narrowing or extending 
the second table of the law, the fourth petition of the ideas and their applications. —It is 
in the Lord’s Prayer, the second article of the worthy of remark, that the series begins with 
Creed, and the second grace in the Pauline mots and ends with ἀγάπη; in that, then, ver. 
triad, the two last graces, to the second half of 11 points to the future, eAmis is added, so that 
the second table of the law, the three last peti- the well-known triad is here alluded to 
tions of the Lord’s Prayer, the third article of (Schott). 


984 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


Ver. 8. Reason for the foregoing exhortation. — ταῦτα, i.e., the virtues 
above mentioned. — yap ὑμῖν ὑπάρχοντα καὶ πλεονάζοντα]. For ὑπάρχειν c. dat., 
ef. Acts iii. 6; πλεονάζοντα intensifies the idea ὑπάρχοντα ; for πλεονάζειν, cf. my 
commentary to 1 Tim. i. 14; it means either “to be present in abundance,” 
strictly, to exceed the measure (abundare), or “to become more, to increase 
(crescere).” Here the first of these two meanings seems to deserve the pref- 
erence; though not so in the judgment of Brickner, Wiesinger, Schott, 
Steinfass, Hofmann. The participles may be resolved into “in that” 
“since” (Dietlein), or “if” (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott); the latter is to 
be preferred, inasmuch as this verse refers back to the exhortation ver. 5, 
and in “ver. 9 the opposite is assumed as possible” (Briickner); thus: “for 
if these virtues exist in you, and that in rich measure ;” Luther in his transla- 
tion has combined the two translations. — οὐκ ἀργοὺς οὐδὲ ἀκάρπους καθίστησιν]. 
ὑμᾶς is to be supplied. Hornejus: λιτότης est, cum ait: non inertes neque in- 
fructuosos pro operosos et fructuosos; Dietlein: “the οὐκ and οὐδὲ belong to 
the adjectives, not to καθιστησιν.᾽ — For ἀργος, cf. 1 Tim. v. 13; Tit. i. 12; 
οὐκ ἀργός, equivalent to “active.” ἄκαρπος cannot mean only “without fruit,” 
but “barren” also; cf. Eph. v. 11 (as against Schott). — καθίστησι : the 
present is not put here for the future (Hornejus). According to Dietlein, 
Wiesinger, and Schott, καθίστημι should mean, “to cause to appear, to ex- 
hibit,” so that the sense would be: “he who possesses these virtues, he 
thereby appears as bringing forth fruit with regard to the ἐπιγν. τοῦ κυρίου Ἴ. 
Xp.,” by which is meant that his knowledge manifests itself as an active one. 
‘This is, however, incorrect: for (1) A meaning is thereby attributed to καθέσ- 
tnut Which it never has, either in the classics or in the N. T. (not even in 
Jas. iii. 6, iv. 4, and Rom. v. 19); it means “to set up,” but not to set forth, 
to exhibit, to manifest, ete. (2) It gives a meaning to εἰς such as that word 
has nowhere else, since the object with which it is to be taken is always to 
be thought of as the end, and that even in the more loose connection in 
which εἰς is equal to “ with regard, with respect to.” (3) It is a somewhat 
idle, because a self-evident reflection, that if knowledge produce the above- 
named virtues, it thereby manifests itself as a knowledge that is not inactive.1 
It is also inaccurate to translate with Luther: “where such is present in 
abundance in you, it will let you be neither idle nor unfruitful in the knowl- 
edge,” ete., for εἰς is not equal to ἐν. The verb καθίστημι denotes, in connec- 
tion with an adjective, reddere, to make into, to set one up as; cf. Pape, 
s.v.; and the preposition εἰς expresses the direction, so that the thought is: 
those virtues make you (or, more exactly, place you as) active and fruitful 
with regard to knowledge, i.e., by them you are advanced with regard to 
knowledge; cf. Col. i. 10: ἐν παντὲ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι εἰς 
τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ (cf. Meyer, in loc.); De Wette: “The author considers 
all these virtues only as steps to the knowledge of Jesus Christ; and this 
knowledge he regards not merely as theoretical, but as one to be obtained 


1 This third reason also contradicts Hof- neither inactive nor unfruitful, he makes this 
mann’s interpretation, which he expresses aiming the rule of all his actions, but so that 
thus: ‘* The believer possesses the knowledge they should be its work, its fruit.” 
of Christ. If then, in aiming at it, he be 


CHAP. I. 9. 3885 


practically, a living into Him, and, at the same time, perfect;”’ thus, too, 
Briickner, Fronmiiller, Steinfass. 

Ver. 9 gives in negative form an explanation of the preceding verses. — 
ᾧ γὰρ μὴ πάρεστι ταῦτα, antithesis to raita . . , πλεονάζοντα, ver. 8. The posses- 
sion of these graces furthers knowledge, for he who does not.possess them is 
τυφλός, that is, in so far as he is, and remains, without the true knowledge 
of Jesus Christ. yu is explained thus, that the idea which lies at the basis 
is: “he who is so constituted, that he is without these virtues” (Hofmann), 
or so that he must be judged as being without them.! — τυφλός ἐστι, μυωπάζων)]. 
μυωπάζειν (ἅπ. Aey.) means, to be a μύωψ, i.e., one short-sighted :? accordingly 
μυωπάζων serves more nearly to define the term τυφλός as one who can see only 
what is near, not what is far off. Schott correctly explains μυωπάζων by 
“weak-sighted.” The older commentators, following Oecumenius, for the 
most part take μυωπάζειν aS Synonymous with τυφλώττειν ; thus Calvin, Hor- 
nejus, ete.; but the identification in meaning of these two terms cannot be 
justified, whilst it gives rise to an intolerable tautology. The translation 
of the Vulgate: manu tentans (similarly, Erasmus: manu viam tentans; 
Luther: “and gropes with the hand;” Calvin: manu palpans), has arisen 
probably from the gloss, ψηλαφῶν, perhaps with reference to Deut. xxviii. 
28, 29; Isa. lix. 10. Wolf interprets the word, after Bochart (Hierozoic 
1. 1. 6. 4), by καμμύειν oculos claudere;*® but μυωπάζειν is not derived from 
μύειν τὰς ὦπας, but from μύωψ. A μύωψ, however, is not one who arbitrarily 
closes his eyes, but one who, from inability to see far enough, is obliged to 
blink with his eyes, in order to see a distant object. The same applies 
to Dietlein, who translates: “one who closes his eyes,” by which he con- 
ceives a voluntary closing of the eyes, precisely that which is opposed to the 
meaning of the word. If, then, μυωπάζων mean a short-sighted person, the 
question arises: What is that near at hand which he sees, and that far off 
which he does not see? The first expression is generally understood as ap- 
plying to earthly, and the second to heavenly things. Hofmann, on the other 
hand, explains: “he sees only what is present to him: that he is a member 
of the Christian Church; but how he has become so, that lies outside his 
horizon.” Here, however, the first thought is purely imported, and the 
second has only an apparent justification in the clause which follows. — 
λήθην λαβών]. ἅπ. Aey. equal to oblitus; Vulgate: oblirionem accipiens; οἵ. 
ὑπόμνησιν λαβών, 2 Tim. i. 5 (cf. Joseph., Ant. 11. vi. 9; Wetstein, Losner, 
Krebs, in loc.) ; taken strictly, the translation is: “having received the λήθη." 
Hofmann justly remarks: that this aoristic clause is not only co-ordinate 
with the preceding, but is added to it by way of explanation. He is wrong, 
however, when he thinks that it is intended to elucidate μυωπάζων. By it 
the author refers not to the consequences (Steinfass, and formerly here), but 


1 Schott unwarrantably maintains, on the σιν οἱ γερῶντες τοῖς μυωπάζουσιν" τὰ yap ἐγγὺς 
interpretation of ver. 8 here adopted, that the μὴ ὁρῶντες Ta πόῤῥωθεν βλέπουσιν. 
translation must be, ‘* he becomes blind.” 8 Τυφλὸς μυωπάζων is dicitur, qui ideo 
2 Aristotle interprets sec. 31: μνωπάζον-  caecus est, quia sponte claudit oculos, ut ne 
τες: οἱ EK γενετῆς τὰ μὲν Eyyus βλεποντες, Ta δὲ videat. 
ἐξ ἁποστάσεως οὐχ ὁρῶντες" ἐναντια δὲ πάσχου- 


386 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


rather to the reason of the blindness, or, more strictly, short-sightedness, 
which manifests itself in the want of the Christian graces. Dietlein arbi- 
trarily emphasizes this forgetting as a voluntary act. This is justified neither 
by the expression itself nor by the connection of thought. — τοῦ καθαρισμοὺ 
τῶν πάλαι αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτημάτων, “the (accomplished) cleansing from the former 
sins; ” not as Winer formerly, in the fifth edition, p. 214, conjectured: “the 
purification, i.e., the removal of sins;” οἵ. Heb. i. 3. As πάλαι shows, καθαρ. 
does not here mean a continuous (to be obtained by repentance perhaps, 
etc.), but a completed process. Not, however, the (ideal) καθαρισμός of sins 
for the whole world of sinners, accomplished through Christ’s death on the 
cross τ-- αὑτοῦ is opposed to this; but the cleansing, i.e., forgiveness, pro- 
cured by the individual in baptism (thus to Briickner, Schott, Hofmann; 
Wiesinger less aptly applies it to the calling), so that πάλαι denotes the time 
preceding baptism; cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11. 

Ver. 10. Resumption of the exhortation. —60d μᾶλλον]. διό is usually 
taken as referring to the truth expressed in vv. 8, 9, and μάλλον interpreted 
as equal to “all the more.” The meaning is, then: that this truth should 
still more incite to zeal (thus Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). Dietlein, 
on the other hand, takes μᾶλλον as “ushering in an antithesis,” equal to 
“yather;” thus also Hofmann. The former supplies the thought: “instead 
of following a virtueless endeavor after a so-called ἐπέγνωσις," for which, 
however, in the context there is no warrant. The latter more correctly 
applies it to what immediately precedes, in this sense, “the readers should 
do the opposite of that which Peter calls a forgetting that they have received 
the pardon of sin.”! That the particle μάλλον frequently expresses an an- 
tithesis, cannot be denied; cf. 1 Cor. v. 2: but as little can it be questioned 
that it may serve to express intensification; ef. Meyer on 2 Cor. vii. 7. In 
this way both interpretations are possible. Still that which is usually given 
appears to be preferable, inasmuch as it seems more natural to apply the 
very significant thought of this verse to vv. 8, 9, than only to the subordi- 
nate idea immediately preceding. — ἀδελφοί makes the exhortation more 
urgent. — σπουδάσατε... ποιεῖσθαι]. The exhortation here points back to 
ver. 5: σπουδὴν π. παρεισενέγκ. The relations of κλῆσις and ἐκλογῇ are thus 
stated by Gerhard: vocaTio, qua in tempore ad regnum gratiae vocati estis : 
ELECTIO, qua ab aelerno ad regnum gloriae electi estis; in like manner Wie- 
singer, Fronmiiller, etc.; cf. Liinemann also on 1 Thess. i. 4. But ἐκλυγῇ 
can also denote the election effected by the κλῆσις, i.e., the separation of 
those who are called from the world, and the translation of them into the 
kingdom of God. And this latter view is supported not only by the position 
in which the two ideas stand to each other, but by the connection of thought 
(Grotius, Brickner, Schott, Hofmann);? for the summons βεβαίαν ποιεῖσθαι 
can apply only to something which has been realiter accomplished in man, 


1 Hofmann interprets διό in harmony with 2 Grotius: ‘date operam, ut et vocatio 
his conception of ver.2: ‘‘for this reason, quae vobis contigit per evangelium et electio 
because he only, who is possessed of the afore- eam secuta, qua facti estis Dei populus, ratae 
named graces, is capable of putting his know]- sint.” 


edge into practice.” 


CHAP. I. 11, 12. 387 
not to the decree of God in itself unchangeable and eternal. For this reason 
Calvin feels himself compelled unwarrantably to paraphrase ozovd. 38... . 
ποιεῖσθαι by: studete ut re ipsa testatum fiat, vos non frustra vocatos esse, imo 
electos.1— For βεβαίαν, ef. Heb. iii. 6, 14. The making sure takes place 
then, when the Christians, by a conduct such as is directed in vv. 5, 8, do 
their part to remain the called and elected people; the opposite of this is 
expressed in ver. 9.— The reading: iva διὰ τῶν καλῶν ὑμῶν ἔργων βεβ., K.7.2., 
reproduces the thought in substance correctly. —rtaita γὰρ ποιοῦντες]. ταῦτα 
refers not to the foregoing virtues, as Hofmann thinks, but to that which 
immediately precedes; “the plural shows that the apostle considered this 
making sure a very many-sided act” (Dietlein). — ob μὴ nraionré ποτε]. πταίειν 
means in Jas. ii. 10, iii. 2, “to offend” (Vulg.: non peccabitis); here as in 
Rom. xi. 11, “to forfeit salvation ;” thus also Hofmann. It is unjustifiable 
to combine the two ideas (De Wette: “to fall, and so to fail of salvation”). 
The double negation οὐ uy, and the ποτέ placed at the end, strengthen the 
statement. 

Ver. 11. οὕτω γάρ]. Resumption of the ταῦτα ποιοῦντες ; Dietlein’s inter- 
pretation is erroneous: “precisely when ye in all humility renounce every 
arrogant striving after distinction;” for there is no reference here to any 
such striving. — πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται ὑμὶν ἣ eicodoc εἰς, x.7.A.]. The con- 
junction of eicodoc and πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται 18 surprising. It is incorrect 
to attribute to πλουσίως a meaning different from that which it always has 
(thus Grotius: promptissimo Dei affectu; Augusti: “in more than one way”). 
It is, however, also erroneous to make πλουσ. ἐπιχορ. apply not to εἴσοδος itself, 
but to the condition which is entered upon after the ¢icodoc, “the higher 
degree of blessedness” (De Wette).? éncyop. represents the entrance into the 
eternal kingdom of Christ as a gift; πλουσίως as a gift abundantly, in so far 
as that entrance is not in any way rendered difficult, or even hindered; the 
opposite is the μόλις, 1 Pet. iv. 18. Schott is not quite accurate in applying 
πλουσίως to the “secure certainty of the entrance.” Wiesinger adopts both 
the interpretation of Gerhard: divites eritis in pnaemiis coeleslibus, and that of 
Bengel: ut quasi cum triumpho intrare possitis. Dietlein here inaptly brings 
in with ἐπιχορηγ. “the conception of a chorus in solemn procession.” It is 
to be noted that as ἐπιχορηγήσατε, ver. 5, points back to δεδώρηται in ver. 4, so 
does this ἐπιχορηγηθῆσεται here to éxcyopnynoate. The Christian’s gift in return 
must correspond with the gift of God, and the return-gift of God again with 
that of the Christian. 

Ver. 12. διό, not “therefore, because the whole duty consists precisely in 
the not forgetting” (Dietlein), for no expression was given to any such 
thought here, but “because to him alone,’ who in the supplying of virtues 


1 Besser toois wrong: “the apostle exhorts 
in these words, that what is stable with God, 
be also stable with us.”’ 

2 Steinfass: ‘* This passage treats of the 
way, of the admission to it, and not of the 
blessedness which awaits the believer at the 
endof it.” He is right, ouly that it is not even 


the way that is treated of, but merely the ad- 
mission (or, more correctly, the entrance) to it. 

5 Hofmann takes exception to this ‘only; " 
wrongly, for although the apostle merely says, 
** that he who would hve up to his exhortations 
would undoubtedly tind an entrance open to 
the everlasting kingdom of Christ,” still that 


388 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


reaches an ever more complete knowledge of Christ, is an entrance into the 
everlasting kingdom of Christ ministered. — μελλήσω]. ‘The same form else- 
where only in Matt. xxiv. 6; De Wette interprets it here: “I will ever have 
a care;” Schott translates: “I will always be in the position;” but there 
is nothing which renders necessary here a translation different from that in 
the other passage. Hofmann justly says that it is a circumlocution for the 
future of ὑπομιμνήσκειν, as in Matt. for ἀκούειν, and that ἀεί must be joined 
with μελλήσω. -- Luther, following the Rec. οὐκ ἀμελῆσω : “therefore I will 
not cease.” — περὶ τούτων, i.e., of all that which has been already mentioned. 
It is not to be limited to any one thing; and therefore not, with De Wette, 
to “the kingdom of God and its future;” nor, with Wiesinger, to “the 
manifestation of faith in its fruits;” and still less can τούτων be understood, 
with Hofmann, of the virtues mentioned in vy.5-7. In this verse the author 
promises his readers that he will dei, i.e., at every time, as the opportunity 
presented itself (Hofmann in all probability incorrectly: “when I address 
you”), remind them of this. By what means, is not said; but that he does 
not refer to this epistle, is shown by the so strongly expressed future. — καίπερ 
εἰδότας. Calvin: Vos quidem, inquit, probe tenetis, quaenam sit evangelii veritas, 
neque vos quasi fluctuantes confirmo, sed in re tanta monitiones nunquam sint 
supervacuae: quare nunquam molestae esse debent. ᾿ Simili excusatione utitur 
Paulus ad Rom., xv. 14. Cf. also 1 John ii. 21; Jude 5. — kai éornprypévove 
ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ ἀληθείᾳ, “and made firm, i.e., are firm in,” etc.; not “although ye 
are supported, i.e., have won a firm’ position by standing on the present 
truth” (Dietlein). ἐν τῇ παρ. ἀληθ. is the complement of ἐστηρ., and states 
not the means by which, but the object in which, the readers have become 
firm. — παρούσῃ stands here in the same sense as τοῦ παρόντος (that is, εὐαγγελίου) 
εἰς ὑμᾶς, Col.i.6.1 De Wette, with not quite strict accuracy, interprets παρούσῃ 
as equal to rapadofeion, Jude 8. Vorstius, Bengel, ete., incorrectly take it as 
referring to the fulfilment in the gospel of the Old-Testament promises; and 
Schott, instead of to truth in an objective sense, “to the relation of fellow- 
ship with God, in which they stood as Christians.” 

Vv. 13, 14. δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι]. “I consider it right and reasonable” (Diet- 
lein: “as a duty”); cf. Phil. i. 7; ver. 14 states the reason. — ἐφ᾽ ὅσον εἰμὶ ἐν 
τούτῳ τῷ σκηνώματι]. σκήνωμα, like σκῆνος, 2 Cor. v. 1, “ the tabernacle,” a figura- 
tive designation of the human body; οἵ. Wisd. ix. 15: τὸ γεῶδες σκῆνος. 
There can hardly be here any direct reference to the nomadic life in tents 
(Hornejus). — διεγείρειν ὑμᾶς ἐν ὑπομνήσει, “to stir you up by reminding you, 1.e., 
to encourage you.’ The same combination takes place in chap. 111. 1; διεγεί- 
pew is to be found elsewhere only in the Gospels, and there in its strict 
signification. — ἐν ὑπομνήσει points back to ὑπομιμνήσκειν in ver. 12, which, in 
the aim of it, διεγείρειν serves to define more nearly. In De Wette’s opinion, 
these words are written with special reference to the advent of Christ; but 
there is nothing to indicate any such limitation of them. It cannot, with 


is as much as to say that he who does not do so 1 Steinfass says: ‘ Theantithesis to παρούσῃ 
will not find that entrance; consequently the is Peter’s absence;” it is hardly probable that 
“only” is understood of itself. the writer thought of this antithesis. 


CHAP. I. 15. 389 


Dietlein, be concluded that this letter is linked on to the First Epistle of 
Peter, from the circumstance that in 1 Pet. v. 8, 9, γρηγορήσατε is to be found 
followed by orepexx.— Ver. 14. εἰδώς, “since 1 know,” gives the reason for 
the δικαιον ἡγοῦμαι, ver. 13. — ὅτι ταγινῇ ἐστιν ἡ ἀπόθεσις τοῦ σκηνώματος μου]. The 
expression ἀπόθεσις is to be explained by “a mingling of the figure of ἃ 
garment and that of a tent“ (De Wette). — ταχίνη is taken by most cominen- 
tators (as also by Wiesinger and Briickner) to mean “soon.” Accordingly 
some (De Wette, Fronmiiller, and others) think that in the subsequent 
words the writer does not refer to the prediction of Christ contained in John 
xxi. 18 ff., but to a later revelation vouchsafed to Peter (such as is men- 
tioned by Hegesippus, De Excid. Jerosolym., iii. 2, and by Ambrose, Ep. 33) ; 
but Bengel already translated ταχινῆ ἐστιν correctly by repentina est: observ- 
ing: Praesens, qui diu aegrotant, possunt alios adhuc pascere. Crux id Petro 
non erat permissura. Ideo prius agit, quod ayendum erat.1 In chap. ii. 1 also, 
taxywoc means “sudden, swift” (Vulg., velour), not “soon.” Peter says here 
that he will end his life by a sudden (i.e., violent) death; so too Steinfass, 
Schott, Hofmann; the adjective ray. states, not the time, but the manner 
of the ἀπόθεσις. Accordingly the assumption of a later revelation has no 
foundation in this passage.2— The particle καὶ after καθως, for the most part 
left unnoticed, shows that the words καθὼς, «.7.4., are added in confirmation 
of Peter’s certainty as to his sudden death, equivalent to “even as indeed.” 
With ἐδηλωσεν, cf. 1 Pet. i. 11. 

Ver. 15. σπουδάσω δὲ καί, “but 1 will, moreover, also zealously take care, 
that.”’ καὶ connects this sentence with ver. 13; it belongs to szovdacw, not to 
what follows. —éxacrore], an. Aey., “on every occasion,” quotiescunque usus 
venerit (Bengel); it belongs to éye, «.7.4., and must not be connected with 
σπουδάσω. --- ἔγειν tude . . . ποιεισθαι]. The construction of σπουδάζειν with the 
accus. cum inf. only here; ἔχειν with the infinitive means, “to be able.” — 
τὴν μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι, here only, “to call up the memory (recollection) of this,” 
that is, m you. similarly μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι (Rom. i. 9; Eph. i. 16, etce.).— 
rovrwv aS in ver. 12. Dietlein, altogether arbitrarily, understands it of the 
memory of the history of Christ as He appeared in the flesh. — Peter prom- 
ises to his readers, that as it was his intention in ver. 12 to remind them of 
the truths stated in vv. 3-11, he would also endeavor that after his death 
they should always be able to remember them. By what means he would 
do this, is in this passage as little stated as in the ueAAjow . . . ὑμὰς ὑπομιμνῆ- 
σκειν, ver. 12. The reference here is not to the first and second epistles ; 3 
this in like manner is opposed by the future σπουδάσω. The words δὲ καὶ 
following on σπουδάσω seem to imply that the author would do something 


1 Besser: ‘‘ The Lord had communicated to 
him that a quick and sudden putting-off of the 
tabernacle of the body awaited him.” 

2 Even if ταχινή meant “soon,” it would 
not be necessary to understand this here; for 
as John xxi. 18 expressly says, ὅταν δὲ yepaons, 
Peter could, 1f writing this epistie in his old 
age, appeal to those words of Christ as cor- 
roborating his expectation of a speedy death. 


8 Dictlein: ‘ Peter finds it necessary, in the 
first place, to stir up their remembrance during 
his lifetime, and secondly, to secure it for the 
time after his death; he wishes to provide for 
the latter also, at all times, i.e., he will not stop 
short at the epistle he has already written, but 
will make use of the present opportunity for 
writing a second.” 


990 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 

else besides the ὑπομιμνήσκειν, whereby his readers after his death would be 
put in a position to remember what he had now written to them. This 
additional something may, however, be regarded as the ἔχειν ὑμᾶς... τὴν 
τουτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι itself in relation to ὑμᾶς ὑπομιμνήσκειν»; that is to say, the 
latter states what he, the former what they, should do. It is most probable 
that the author in μελλήσω ὑπομιμνησκεῖν and σπουδάσω expresses his intention 
of continuing for the future also to write to his readers as time and oppor- 
tunity presented themselves. It is entirely arbitrary to take the promise as 
referring to copies of his letters (De Wette), or to the composition of the 
Gospel of Mark, which is supposed to have been done under Peter’s super- 
intendence (Michaelis, Pott, Fronmiiller, etc.), or to the appointing of faithful 
teachers, cf. 2 Tim. ii. 2. 

Ver. 16. οὐ γὰρ σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντεςἢ. γάρ shows that this 
verse, in which allusion is made to the erroneous teachers, gives the reason 
for the σπουδάσω. The connection of thought is perfectly plain, so soon as it 
is observed that all that has gone before has been said in close relation to 
the “promises” (ver. 4). -- σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις, Luther inexactly: “clever 
fables; σοφίζειν means in 2 Tim. iii. 15, “to make wise;” this meaning 
is inappropriate here; in the classics it occurs in the sense, ‘‘ to contrive 
cleverly ;" thus Aristophanes, Nub. 543: det καινὰς ἰδεας codifouar; accordingly 
cecoo, μῦθοι are ‘cleverly contrived fables :” Pott: fabulae ad decipiendos homi- 
num animos artificiosae excogitatae atque exornatae;} cf. chap. 1. 3, πλαστοὶ λόγοι. 
The interpretation of Aretius is, on the other hand, incorrect: fabulae falsam 
habentes sapientiae et veritalis speciem. The expression μῦθοι is to be found in 
the N. T. only here and in the Pastoral Epistles. As the author makes no 
special allusion of the kind, it is at least doubtful if he refers to any definite 
myths; either those of the heathen with reference to the appearances of the 
gods upon earth (Oecumenius, Estius, Bengel, ete.), or to those of the Gnos- 
tics as to the emanation of the aeons (Dietlein), or to the Gnostic myth of 
the Sophia (Baur), or to the apocryphal legends of the birth and childhood 
of Christ, especially in the Ev. Infantiae Jesu (Jachmann), or to false myths 
as to Christ embellished in the spirit of the Jewish Messianic beliefs (Semler), 
or “apocryphal, didactic, and historical traditions, as these were appended by 
a later Judaism to the histories of the O. T., especially to the most ancient” 
(Schott, similarly Steinfass), or to the practice of heathen lawgivers, who, 
according to Josephus, appropriated to themselves the fables of popular 
belief, borrowing from them their accounts of the gods (Hofmann). The 
words express, indeed, an antithesis, but this is of an entirely general kind; 
either in order to bring out that the apostolic preachers are not like those 


1 Dietlein thinks that the expression cego- 
φισμενοις contains a double reproach, i.e., not 
only by the termination ἐζειν, but also in as far 
as the word σοφία means what is bad; however, 
the termination cgecy is by no means always 
used in a bad sense, nor does σοφία in itself 
mean what is bad, except only in connection 
with τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (1 Cor. i. 20), ἀνθρωπίνη 
(1 Cor. ii. 18), ete. Besides, σοφίζειν is mostly 


employed so as to contain the secondary mean- 
ing of cleverness (see Pape, s.v.) ; consequently 
Hofmann is wrong in rendering σεσοφισμένος 
simply by ‘‘conceived,” asserting that the 
word means nothing else. Cf. with our pass- 
age, Josephus, Antig., prooem. 4: οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι 
νομοθεται τοῖς μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῶν 
ἀνθρωπίνων ἁμαρτημάτων εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς τῷ λογῳ 
THY αἰσχυνὴν μετεθησαν, κιτιλ. 


᾿ΟῊΗΑΡ, I. 16. 391 


others who seek the support of myths,— perhaps with special reference to 
the false teachers alluded to in chaps. ii. and iii., — or, what is less probable, 
in order to meet the reproaches of these teachers (Wiesinger), and the 
contrast serves to give the more prominence to the positive statement. — 
ἐξακολουθῆσαντεςῆῚ. The verb, besides here, only in chap. ii. 2 and 15. The 
preposition ἐξ does not precisely indicate the error (Bengel), but only the 
going forth from a particular point; in common usage, however, this second- 
ary meaning often entirely recedes; cf. the passage below, quoted from 
Josephus, Ant., prooem. $4. By this negative statement the author denies 
not only that his message was based on myths, but that in it he followed a 
communication received from others (Schott). —éyvupicayev ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ κυρ. 
ju. Ἴ. Xp, δύναμιν κ᾿ παρουσίαν]. Several interpreters understand this of the 
First Epistle of Peter; in which case the plural is surprising, for the author 
had already spoken of himself in the singular. Hofmann’s objection to this 
view is, that although in his former epistle Peter refers to the power and 
coming of Christ, he did not first make it known to the readers. But the 
passages 1 Cor. xv. 1 and Gal. i. 11 show that γνωρίζειν may also be used of 
a proclamation, the substance of which had already been communicated 
to those to whom it was made. Many commentators take the words as 
referring to the whole preaching of the apostles, understanding ὑμῖν, not of 
the readers specially, but of the Gentile Christians generally; thus Wie- 
singer, and more decidedly Hofmann. It must be observed, however, in 
opposition to this, that γενηθέντες and the subsequent ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν must 
refer to the same subject as ἐγνωρίσαμεν. The most probable explanation is, 
that the author, remembering that he was not the only witness of the trans- 
figuration, passed from the singular to the plural, and in so doing made use 
of ὑμῖν in its extended sense. — παρουσία is not here the nativitas Christi, His 
human birth (Vatablus, Erasmus, Hornejus, Pott, Jachmann, etc.), nor 
“His presence during the time He appeared on earth” (Schmid); but, in 
harmony both with the N. T. usage (chap. iil. 4; Matt. xxiv. 3,27; 1 Cor. 
xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19, etc.) and_the connection of thought (vv. 4, 17, iii. 4): 
the return of Christ to judgment (Estius, Semler, Knapp, Dietlein, De Wette- 
Brickner, Hofmann, and the more modern interpreters generally).! δύναμις, 
however, denotes the fulness of might of the glorified Lord, as it will be 
more especially revealed in His παρουσία. It is not correct to combine both 
ideas into one, and with Hornejus to explain, potens adventus; or with 
Bengel, majestas praesentissima. — ἀλλ᾽ énontat.. . μεγαλειότητος]. An antithesis, 
affirmatively stated, to what goes before. ἐπόπτης, ἀπ. Aey. (1 Pet. 11. 12, 
iii. 2: ἐποπτεύων), is the term. techn. for him who had reached the highest 
degree of initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries. Keeping to this, Bengel 
here interprets, ad intima arcana admissi; De Wette, too, thinks that the 
expression has here the secondary meaning of being initiated, of intimacy. 
It is no doubt chosen purposely with reference to the fact that the μεγαλειότης 
of Christ, which Peter and the other two disciples beheld, was a mystery 


1 Fronmiiller only interprets: ‘‘ His ap- along with His expected appearance in 
pearing with miraculous powers in the flesh, glory.” 


892 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


hidden from the others. Grotius, Pott, and others take it as synonymous 
with αὐτόπτης, Luke i. 2. The connection demands that ἐπόπται γενηθέντες 
should be referred to the fact of the transfiguration (ver. 17). Hofmann is 
wrong in supposing that Peter here thought of the appearance of the risen 
One and His ascension. The assertion is refuted not only by the close con- 
nection in which ver. 17 stands to this verse, but by the word μεγαλειότης, 
which in no sense is expressive only of “greatness.” As the form in which 
Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after His resurrection was the same 
as that in which they had seen Him before it, they were not then in any 
way ἐπόπται of his μεγαλειότης ; nor is there the slightest hint that there is 
here allusion to any fact other than that mentioned in the following verse. 
— τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος, that is, the glory in which at His transfiguration 
Christ showed Himself to the three disciples. Incorrectly, Calvin: exemplum 
unum prae aliis eligit memorabile, in quo Christus coclesti gloria ornatus con- 
spicuam divinae magnificentiae speciem tribus discipulis praebuit. The apostle 
rather regards the transfiguration glory of Christ as the type —and there- 
fore the proof — of the glory of Christ at His πωρουσία. 

Ver. 17. λαβὼν γὰρ. .. δόξαν]. γάρ, “that is;” explanation of the imme- 
diately preceding: ἐπόπται γενηθέντες. The participle does not require any 
such supplement as ἣν or ἐτύγχανε, nor is it put instead of the finite verb. 
For the principal thought is, not that Christ was transfigured, but that Peter 
was a witness of this transfiguration, which was typical of the δύναμις καὶ 
παρουσία of Christ. The finite verb belonging to the participle λαϑών is 
wanting. Its absence is most naturally accounted for by supposing that 
the addition of φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης, x.7.2., caused the author to forget to notice 
that he had not written ἔλαβε yap, Wow after writing λαθών he intended to 
proceed, cannot be definitely said; what is wanting, however, must be sup- 
plied from that which goes before, not from what follows. Winer, p. 330 
(E. T., 851), incorrectly supplies the necessary complement from ver. 18, 
since he says that Peter should have continued ἡμᾶς εἰχε ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἀκού- 
cavrac, ΟΥ̓ in asimilar manner. But it is still more arbitrary to borrow the 
supplement from ver. 19 (as is done by Dietlein and Schott). — παρὰ θεοῦ 
tatpoc]. πατῆρ is applied here to God in His relation to Christ, with refer- 
ence to the subsequent ὁ υἱός μου. --- τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν]. “Honor and glory,” as 
in Rom. ii. 7,10; δόξα denotes not the brightness of Christ’s body at the 
transfiguration (Ilornejus, Gerhard, etc.; Steinfass would understand both 
expressions of the shining figure of Christ). Hofmann is unwarranted in 
finding in λαβὼν, «.7.2., a confirmation of his opinion that it is the resurrec- 
tion and ascension that are here referred to, inasmuch as God first conferred 
honor and glory upon Christ, by raising Him from the dead and exalting 
Him. To this it may be said that by every act of God which testified to 
His glory, Christ received τιμὴ καὶ δόξα, i.e., “honor and praise.” — φωνῆς 
ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε states through what Christ received “honor and praise:” 
the expression φωνὴ φέρεταί τινι, here only; Luke ix. 35, 36, φωνὴ γίγνεται ; so 
also Mark i. 11; Luke iii. 22 (cf. John xii. 28, 30); αὐτῷ, the dative of direc- 
tion, not “in honorem ejus” (Pott). — ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης. ὑπό 18 
neither equivalent to “accompanied by” (Wahl), nor to “from... out of” 


CHAP. I. 18, 19. « 3893 


(Winer, fifth edition, p. 442 f.): the preposition, even where in local rela- 
tions it inclines to these significations, always maintains firmly its original 
meaning, “under;” here, as generally in passives, it signifies “by;” thus, 
too, Winer, sixth edition, p. 330, seventh, 346 (E. T., 368): “when this 
voice was borne to Him by the sublime Majesty.” ἡ μεγαλοπρεπὴς (dm. Aey.) 
δόξα means neither heaven nor the bright cloud (Matt. xvii. 5);1 it is rather 
a designation of God Himself (Gerhard, De Wette-Bruckner, Wiesinger, 
Fronmiiller, Hofmann); similarly as, in Matt. xxvi. 64, God is called by 
the abstract expression ἡ δύναμις. With μεγαλοπρεπῆς, cf. Deut. xxxiii. 26, 
LXX. — οὐτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός]. So in Matthew; only with the 
addition αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε, and instead of εἰς ὅν: “ἐν 3,” In Mark ix. 7 and Luke 
ix. 35 (where, instead of ἀγαπητός, there is “ ἐκλελεγμένος ), the words εἰς ὃν 
ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα are entirely wanting. The reading adopted by Tisch. 7: ὁ υἷος 
μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου οὗτὸς ἐστι, corresponds to none of the accounts in the Gos- 
pels; ef. with it the O. T. quotation from Isa. xlii. 1 in Matthew (chap. 
xii. 18): ὁ παῖς μου... ὁ ἀγαπητὸς μου, εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἢ ψυχῆ μου. --- The con- 
struction οἱ εὐδοκεῖν with εἰς does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; there is 
no warrant for the assertion that εἰς points “to the historical development 
of the plan of salvation” (!) (Dietlein). 

Ver. 18. καὶ ταύτην . . . ἐνεχθεῖσαν ; the author is anxious to show promi- 
nently that he has been an ear-witness of that divine voice, as well as an 
eye-witness of the μεγαλειότης of Christ. —éé οὐρανοῦ ἐνεχθ. is added by way 
of emphasis, in order to lay stress on the fact that Christ received that 
testimony directly from heaven. —év τῷ ὄρει τῷ dyiw]. From the epithet 
τῷ dyw it must not, with Grotius, be concluded that the reference here is 
to the hill on which the temple stood, and that what is alluded to is not 
the transfiguration, but the incident recorded in John xii. 28. Without 
any reason, De Wette asserts that that epithet (instead of which Matt. 
xvil. 1 has ὑψηλὸν) betrays a view of the case more highly colored with 
the belief in miracles than that of the apostles, and belonging to a later 
period; Calvin already gives the correct interpretation: montem SANCTUM 
appellat, qua ratione terra sancta dicitur, in qua Mosi Deus apparuit; quo- 
cunque enim accedit Dominus, ut est fons omnis sanctitatis, praesentiae suae 
odore omnia sanctificat, Dietlein: “the ‘in the holy’ is added, not to desig- 
nate the mountain, but in order to distinguish it on account of this event;” 
so, too, Briickner and the modern commentators generally. 

Ver. 19. καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, “and we have as one more 
stable (surer) the word of prophecy.” ‘The second testimony tor the glory of 
Christ in His second coming is “the word of prophecy.” This Luther under- 
stands to mean the “gospel;” Griesbach: “ New Testament prophecies ;” 
Erasmus: “the heavenly testimony mentioned in ver. 18.” But the connec- 
tion with what follows shows that it is the Old-Testament promises which 
are here meant. On the singular Bengel rightly says: Mosis, Esaiae et 


1 Schott, indeed, interprets ὑπό correctly, the manifestation which God gave of Him- 
but yet thinks that τῆς weyad. δόξης means the 6611" (!). 
cloud; ‘‘ not indeed the cloud in itself, but as 


394 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


omnium prophetarum sermones unum sermonem sibi undequaque constantem fa- 
ciunt ; non jam singularia dicta Petrus profert, sed universum eorum testimonium 
complectitur ; only that here reference is made specially to the promise with 
regard to the δυναμις καὶ παρουσία of Christ.— The expression προφητικός, 
besides here, only in Rom. xvi. 26: γραφαὶ mpopytixai. — The article τόν marks 
this as a definite prophecy, well known to the readers. With regard to it 
the author says: ἔχομεν ϑεβαιότερον; for the force of βέβαιος, cf. especially Rom. 
iv. 16; Heb. ii. 2,9,17; 2 Cor. 1.6. βεβαιότερον is neither to be connected 
directly with the object, nor is the comparative to be taken as synonymous 
with the positive or with the superlative. Luther, trebly inaccurate: “we 
have a stable prophetic word.” — How then is the comparative to be ex- 
plained? Oecumenius says, by the relation in which the fulfilment stands 
to the promise, in this sense, that the truth of the latter is confirmed by the 
former, and that accordingly the prophetic word has now become more sure 
and stable than it was formerly (thus, too, Fronmiiller). But the promise 
here in question still awaits its fulfilment. De Wette’s view is more suit- 
able. According to it, the comparative is put with reference to the event 
mentioned in vv. 17, 18, so that the thought would be, “and the prophetic 
word is more stable to us (now) from the fact that we saw and heard that” 
(thus, too, Schmidt, 11., p. 213, Briickner, Dietlein, Schott)! Wiesinger 
combines this view with that of Oecumenius. There are objections to this 
view; De Wette himself raises them: (1) That any more precise allusion to 
this sense by a viv or an ἐκ τούτου is wanting; (2) That in what follows, the 
thought stated is neither held fast nor developed. These, however, are 
easily removed, when it is considered that there is no intention here of giving 
prominence to the point of time, and that in what follows the reference is 
precisely to the prophetic word confirmed by the above-mentioned fact; cf. 
Briickner. It is incorrect to take the comparative here as implying that the 
word of prophecy is placed higher than something else, for this could only 
be that event mentioned in vy. 16,17.2 But the very stress laid on it and 
on the ἐπόπται γενηθέντες τῆς éxeivov μεγαλειότητος, is opposed to this view. How 
inappropriate would it be, if in comparison with it the word of prophecy 
should be brought prominently forward as more stable and sure! The 
nominative to ἔγομεν is not the apostles generally (against Hofmann), hardly 
either can it be Peter and his readers; but, as the close connection of this 
verse with what precedes shows, the subject to ἔχομεν is no other than that 
to ἠκοίσαμεν. The author does not, indeed, here appeal to any of Christ’s 
own prophecies of His second coming. But this is to be explained, not by 
assuming that these were unknown to him, nor because “the rapid succes- 
sion of the advent on the destruction of Jerusalem, foretold in them, had 
not taken place” (De Wette), but simply because the writer’s aim here was 
to point to the testimonies regarding Christ and what related to Him (and 


1 Hofmann, too, interprets thus, only that 2 Steinfass, indeed, thinks that the μῦθοι are 
he looks upon the fact, by which the word of _ referred to; Gerhard has already proved the 
prophecy is made ‘‘ more sure,’’ not as being _incorrectness of this assumption. 

Christ’s transfiguration, with the divine testi- 
mony, but His resurrection and ascension. 


CHAP. I. 19. 3895 


thus not to those of Christ Himself) (thus, too, Brickner). —6 καλῶς ποιεῖτε 
προσέχοντες, “ whereunto to take heed, ye do well,” as Heb. ii. 1: “to give heed 
to something with a believing heart.” The searching into the word of 

prophecy is only the consequence of this. The same construction of «a2. 
᾿ ποιεῖν cum part., Acts x. 33; Phil. iv. 14; 3 John 0.1 -- ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν 
.abyuno® τόπῳ]. The comparative particle ὡς points to the nature and signifi- 
cance of the λόγος mpod.; it is in the sphere of spiritual life, the same as a 
λύχνος in the outward world of sense. — φαίνοντι, not qui lucebat (Bengel) ; it 
is rather the present, an attribute of λύχνῳ. αὐχμηρός (am. Aey.), literally, 
“parched, dry,” then “ dirty, dingy ” (opposed to λαμπρός, Arist., De Colorib.).? 
It is used with the latter meaning here. αὐχμηρὸς τόπος has indeed been 
explained as a desert, or a “place overrun with wild scraggy wood ” (Hof- 
mann); but this would make sense only if the idea of darkness or night 
were added in thought (as by Steinfass), for which, however, there is still 
no warrant. —éwe οὐ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ] ἕως ob (generally construed with dv), 
ce. conj. aorist, expresses the duration of the act until the arrival of a future 
event which is looked upon as possible; that is, “until the day breaks,” etc., 
not “until the day shall have dawned” (De Wette), cf. Matt. x. 11, 23, 39 ff. 
Some commentators (Bengel, etc., Schott, too, and Hofmann) join ἕως οὐ 
with φαίνοντι ; incorrectly; it belongs rather to προσέχοντες, which in the con- 
text has the accent. Taken with ga:vovr it would be a somewhat superfluous 
adjunct, if it be not at the same time applied, according to the thought, to 
προσέχοντες, aS is done by Dietlein, though without any linguistic justifica- 
tion. — διαυγάζειν, ἅπ. Aey., used frequently in the classics of the break of day, 
when the light shines through the darkness; Polyb. iii. 104; ἅμα τῷ διαυγάζειν. 
-- καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ]. φωσφύρος, az. Aey., 156 not meant to designate the sun 
(Hesychius, Knapp, etc.), but the morning star; many interpreters (Besser, 
etc.) incorrectly understand by it Christ. The adjunct καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατεῖλῃ 
serves only further to complete the picture—that of the morning which 
precedes the full day. —év ταὶς καρδίαις ὑμῶν belongs not to προσέχοντες (Schott), 
far removed from it, to which it would form a somewhat dragging supple- 
ment; nor is it to be taken with the subsequent τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες (Iof- 
mann). For, on the one hand, the observation that the reference here is to 
a heart knowledge, would have a meaning only if γινώσκοντες contained an 
exhortation to such knowledge; and, on the other, the position of the words 
is opposed to this connection. Consequently ἐν ταῖς καρδιαις can be joined 
only with the clause immediately preceding ἕως οὗ, x.7.4. (De Wette-Briickner, 
Wiesinger, Fronmiiller). As to the reference of the figure, commentators 
are much divided among themselves. De Wette understands αὐχμηρὺς τόπος 
of “the time previous to Christianity, which still continues for those who 
were not in the faith, and to whom the readers belonged.” But opposed to 


1 Joseph., Ant., xi. 6, 12: οἷς (γράμμασι original meaning of ‘dry,’ is antithetical to 
᾿Αμάνου) ποιήσατε καλῶς μὴ προσέχοντες. στίλβον ;᾽ is contradicted by the passage itself 

2 Hofmann’s entirely unwarranted asser- to which he appeals, and which runs thus: 
tion, “Τί is in vain to appeal to the fact, that ποιεῖ δὲ διαφορὰν καὶ τὸ λαμπρὸν ἢ στιλβον εἶναι 
in Aristotle ἀυχμηρός occurs as antithesis to τὸ μιγνύμενον ἢ τοὐναντίον αὐχμηρὸν καὶ 
λαμπρός; the antithesis to λαμπρόν there is ἀλαμπές (Arist.: περὶ χρωμάτων; Becker, II, 
ἀλαμπές; On the other hand, αὐχμηρός, in its 793); and how should στιλβος mean ‘** wet” ? 


990 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


this is the fact that in vv. 1, 12, the author speaks of his readers as believing 
Christians. Gerhard (with whom Briickner formerly concurred) takes the 
reference to be to the former condition of the readers, when as yet they did 
not believe. Against this, however, is the present ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχ. 
The only adequate meaning to attach to τόπος αὐχμ. is, the world in its 
present condition (Wiesinger, Briickner, in the third edition of De Wette’s 
Commentary). The world is the dark place which is illumined only by the 
light of the divine (more precisely, the prophetic) word; therefore the Chris- 
tians do well to give heed to this word, since otherwise they would be in 
darkness. In taking exception to this view, Hofmann says that it is “a 
mistake to identify the place where the light shines with that where those 
are for whom it is lit up.” In his view the meaning should be, that to 
him who looks into the final future, to which the prophetic word points, 
this word will perform a service similar to that of a light in a pathless 
region at night, — this service, namely, “that the believer does not stand 
helplessly before the future, which lies before us like a confusion which is 
enveloped in night.” But against this explanation it must be urged, that 
the figure employed by Peter would be appropriate only if the place in which 
the λύχνος shines were compared with that in which the believers are, and 
that the reference to the uncertain future is purely imported. — The words 
ἕως οὗ, «.7.4,, Show that for the believer another condition of matters: will 
commence. The time when the day dawns in the hearts of the Christians, 
and the morning star arises, and when consequently they can do without 
the light, has been variously determined. According to Dorner, it is “a 
time within the development of the Christian life in the individual; that 
time, namely, when what is matter of history shall become living knowl- 
edge, influencing entirely the whole life.”1 But such a separation of the 
development of the Christian life of his readers into two periods can the less 
be assumed here, that the author would thus accuse them of still possessing 
a purely outward Christianity, and it can hardly be supposed that he should 
have considered the word of prophecy as unnecessary for the advanced Chris- 
tian. Early commentators already correctly applied the words to the parousia. 
It is erroneous, however, to understand them of that event itself, for with the 
advent the morning passes into the perfect day. The point of time which 
Peter has in view is that immediately preceding the second coming, the time 
when the σημεῖον of the Son of man appears (Matt. xxiv. 380), when believers 
are to lift up their heads because their ἀπολύτρωσις draweth nigh (Luke xxi. 
28), when accordingly the morning star which ushers in the day shall arise 
in their hearts; similarly, Wiesinger and Briickner.? 

Ver.. 20. τοῦτο refers not to any thing said 
before, but to the clause following: ὅτι, «.7.4.; cf. chap. iii. 3. — πρῶτον, i q., 


τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες]. 


1 Lehre v. d. Pers. Christi, 2d ed. part I., 
p- 104. 

2 The difficulty of this verse is not dimin- 
ished by the connection of the words ἐν 7. 
«apd. vw. With προσέχ., and of ἕως οὗ ἡ ἡμέρα, 
«.7.A., With φαίνοντι (Schott), since, if these 
words ἕως οὗ are not to be almost meaningless, 


the question remains, what that morning is 
to which they refer. Schott, indeed, passes 
lightly over this difficulty by saying: “Τὸ is 
left to the reader to transfer this metaphor 
correctly to the dawn of the future day of per- 
fect consummation.” 


CHAP. I. 90. ° 397 


πρῶτον πάντων, 1 Tim. ii. 1; erroneously, Bengel: prius quam ego dico, anglicé: 
“before that.” — γινώσκοντες : “whilst ye recognize, bring yourselves to the 
conscious knowledge that” (De Wette); cf. Jas. i. 3; Heb. x. 84. With- 
out any warrant Pott supplies δέ, and takes the participle as equivalent to 
“dei γινώσκειν iuac;" the participle, as such, is rather to be joined closely 
to καλ. ποιεῖτε προσέχ. By τοῦτο zp. γιν. the author directs the attention of his 
readers to the point to which they in their zpooéyew (ver. 19) should pay 
special attention; what that is, the words following say: ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία 
... γίνεται; πᾶσα. . . ob is a Hebraism for οὐδεμία, cf. Rom. 111. 20; 1 Cor. 
1. 29, etc. προφητεία γραφὴς is undoubtedly to be understood of the prediction 
of the Old Testament, either the prophecy contained in Scripture, or that to 
which the Scripture gives expression. For the construction of γένεται 6. gen., 
ef. Winer, p. 184 (E. T., 195 f.); Buttm., p. 142 (Εἰ, T., 163); according to 
Buttmann, the genitive definition of the thing with εἶναι or γίνεσθαι frequently 
denotes a permanent attribute; thus here: prophecy is of such a kind that 
it, etc.; the more precise definition depends on the meaning of the words 
ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως. Instead of ἐπιλύσεως, Grotius would read ἐπηλύσεως, and Hein- 
sius, ἐπελεύσεως ; 80 that the sense would be, the προφητεία non est res proprit 
impetus s. instinctus: but these changes have been justly rejected by Wolf 
already as arbitrary. Not less unwarranted is it to understand, with Ham- 
mond, ἐπίλυσις originally de emissione cursorum e carceribus, deducing there- 
from the thought: that the prophets non a se, sed a Deo missi ‘currerent, or, 
with Clericus, de solutione oris, or, with Lakemacher, to derive émAvoiw from 
ἐπιλεύθω (ἐπέρχομαι), Instead of from ἐπιλύειν, thus obtaining the idea: that 
prophecy is not accessus proprie aut talis, quae virtute quadam mentis humanae 
propria et naturali proveniat et ad hominem quasi accedat (cf. Wolf, in loc.). 
The, notion that ἐπίλυσις is equal to dissolutio! has been refuted already by 
Wolf. — ἐπίλυσις means solution, explanation, interpretation; thus Mark 
iy. 34, ἐπιλύειν; Gen. xl. 8, Aquila, ἐπιλυομενος (WN), ἐπίλυσις (5); Gen. 
ΧΙ. 12, LXX., according to some codd., τὰ ἐνύπνια ἡμῶν, ἀνδρὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐνύπνιον 
αὐτοὺ ἐπέλυσει ; Phil. De Vita Contempl., p. 901 A — Almost all expositors 
understand émAvoc as the interpretation of the προφητεία made aforetime; 
but ἐδίας, however, has been variously applied: (1) It has been taken to refer 
to the προφητεία itself; Werenfels (cf. Wolf): προφητεία οὐκ ἔχει τὴν ἑαυτῆς ἐπι- 
λυσιν, that is, οὐκ ἐπιλύει ἑαυτὴν; thus also Wahl, Dietlein, Briickner. The 
positive idea here to be supplied is: but “the interpretation is to be looked 
for only from God” (Briickner; Dietlein arbitrarily finds the further idea 
contained here, that prophecy must not be treated as allegory). (2) To the 
prophets theinselves; Oecumenius: jjdecav (οἱ προφῆται) μὲν καὶ συνίεσαν τὸν κατα- 
πεμπόμενον αὐτοὶς προφητικὸν λόγον, οὐ μέντοι καὶ THY ἐπιλυσιν αὐτου ἐποιοῦντο (SimMi- 
larly, Knapp, De Wette); and the thought to be supplied here is: the 
interpretation is then not an easy, but a difficult, matter (De Wette: “the 
author makes this remark in order to excuse the difficulty of the interpreta- 
tion, and to take away the pretext for unbelief or scofling”). (3) To the 


1 Hardt: *‘omnis promissio non est dissolutionis sed indissolubilis, immutabilis,” etc. ; 
similarly Storr, Opp. Li. 391 ff. 


998 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


readers or to man generally. This is the view most generally adopted; it 
is that of Beda, Erasmus, Luther, Aretius, Gerhard, Pott, Steiger, Schmid, 
Besser, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann, etc.; and the positive thought to be 
supplied is: only the Holy Spirit can expound the prediction (Luther: “act 
accordingly, and do not think that you can interpret Scripture according to. 
your own reason or cunning; Peter has forbidden it; you are not to inter- 
pret; the Holy Spirit must interpret, or it must remain uninterpreted”). But 
opposed to all these interpretations is: (1) The necessity of supplying the 
positive thought which really contains the point of the remark, but to which 
the apostle does not give expression; (2) The connection of thought, accord- 
ing to which ver. 20 is subjoined as a confirmation of the ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέ- 
yovrec. If the thought here expressed were intended to give a caution with 
respect to the προσέχειν, or to form, as Wiesinger says, a condition preliminary 
and necessary to it, this must in some way have been referred to. Besides, 
it must be noted that εἶναι or γίνεσθαι, c. gen., implies a relation of depend- 
ence, and in such a way that the genitive denotes that ‘on which something 

else depends. Now, it may, indeed, be said that the “understanding” of 
prophecy, but not that prophecy itself, depends on the interpretation of it. 
The rendering, “ prophecy is not a matter of private interpretation ” (or even, 
“it does not permit of private interpretation,” Hofmann), takes too little 
account of the force of the genitive. For these reasons éziAvouc must neces- 
sarily be understood rather of an “ interpretation’ on which the προφητεία is 
based, on which it depends. But this is the explanation of the problematic 
future itself, or of the figure under which it presented itself to the prophets 
(thus, too, Gerlach and Fronmiller).2 The passage above cited makes the 
matter clear. Gen. xl. 8: the words in which Joseph predicted to the pris- 
oners what lay before them, form the προφητεία; this presupposes an ἐπίλυσις, 
interpretation, of the dream by Joseph, and of this Joseph says that it be- 
longs to God. Thus, too, he speaks to Pharaoh: “the interpretation is not 
in me,” Gen. xli. 15,16; cf. Dan. chap. ii. — The thought accordingly is this: 
No prophecy of Scripture arises out of, or depends on, private (of him who 
utters the prophecy) interpretation of the future. Taken thus, the verse 
stands in close and correct connection both with what precedes, for it states 


1 Certainly, also, the above construction can 
merely express the relation of belonging to, as 
in Heb. xii. 11; but in that passage the ideas 
παιδεια And χαρᾶς (λύπης) stand in an altogether 
different relation to each other, from-that in 
which προφητεια here stands to ἐπιλυσις. 

2 Hofmann’s remark is indeed very apodic- 
tic, that ‘‘ the first of these counter reasons is 
null, and that accordingly the second is so too, 
because τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες Means a per- 
ception, which must be combined with the 
attending to the word of prophecy, . . . buta 
perception, the substance of which could only 
be expressed negatively, because meant only 
to guard the prophecy against an interpreta. 
tion brought about by the couclusions of the 


individual intellect; ” but the objection to this 
is the same as that to the second counter reason 
above. If the author wished the τοῦτο... - 
γινώσκοντες to be understood in the sense of 
guarding against, he would at least have 
added a de. —It is not easy to understand why 
the author, if he had wished to express the 
thought which his words are supposed to con- 
tain, did not write, ὅτι ἐπίλυσις προφητείας ov 
γίνεται ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, or something similar. 

8 Bengel’s interpretation is similar: ‘ ἐπί- 
λυσις dicitur interpretatio, qua ipsi prophetae 
res antea plane clausas aperwere mortalibus,” 
only that here no definite distinction is drawn 
between pod. and ἐπιλυσις. 


) CHAP. I. 21. 3899 


why the λόγ. προφ. is βέβαιος whereunto it is right to take heed, as unto a light in 
a dark place (namely, because it is based on no human interpretation) ; and 
at the same time with what follows, which serves to explain and confirm the 
thought (inasmuch as it more precisely defines the idea, and by the positive 
statement confirms the negation).* Brickner incorrectly, therefore, objects 
to this interpretation, that although it may be in harmony with ver. 21, it 
cannot with propriety be connected with ver. 19; and if Briickner and Wie- 
singer further urge against it that it arbitrarily supplies the object of ἐπέλυσις, 
it must be replied, that object is rather supplied of itself out of the connec- 
tion with προφητεία. The present γίνεται alone seems to be inappropriate, but 
this may be explained by supposing that the thought is conceived in the 
form of a general statement; this Briickner has recognized, whilst Wiesinger 
leaves it unnoticed.? 

Ver. 21. ob γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου]. These words correspond with the pre- 
ceding ἰδίας ἐπιλ. οὐ γίνεται; “nol from or by the will of a man;” cf. Jer. xxiii. 
26, LXX.: ἕως ποτὲ ἔσται... ἐν TH προφητεύειν αὐτοὺς τὰ θελήματα τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν. 
- ἠνέχθη ποτὲ προφητεία]. Vulg.: allata est, the verb as in vv. 17, 18 (οἵ. also 
2 John 10). De Wette’s translation: “is delivered or uttered,” is inexact, 
inasmuch as the idea of a set discourse is not directly contained in the verb. 
Steinfass’s interpretation of προφ. is wrong from a linguistic point of view: 
“ gift of prophecy.” — ποτέ belongs closely to the negative ov, equal to “never.” 
The sense of the clause is, “the cause in which προφητεία has its origin is not 
the free will of man, determining itself thereto.” — ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου 
φερόμενοι, x.7.A.]. The form of this, which does not exactly correspond with 
that of the preceding clause, serves to bring into greater prominence the 
passivity of the prophets. — φερόμενοι : “borne along” (as by the wind, e.g., 
the ship was driven, Acts xxvii. 15,17). The impelling power is the πνεῦμα 
Joseph., Ant., iv. 6, 5, says of Balaam: τῳ θείῳ πνεύματι... κεκινημένος ; 
cf. the expressions in the classics: θεοφορεῖσθαι, θεοφόρητος.8 ---- ἐλάλησαν]. Hor- 
nejus: intellige tam voce, quam scripto. “Men it was who spoke; but their 
speaking had the active reason of its origin, and its starting-point, in God” 
(Schott). — ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι]. In this expression, considered to be genuine, 
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ denotes the starting-point of the speaking: “men spoke from God.” 
The prophets are thus significantly called simply ἄνθρωποι, in reference to the 
ἀνθρώπου going before. They were but men; prophets they became only by 
4 The Rec. ayo Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι is only a circumlocution for 


ἅγιον. 


the πνεῦμα Θεοῦ. 


1 On the other hand, in the usual way of 
understanding this passage, ver. 21 is most 
inappropriately connected with ver. 20, since 
no explanation is given of the idea that the 
interpretation of the prophecy, because it is 
not the work of man, can only be expected 
from the Holy Spirit. 

2 Steinfass thinks that the author refers to 
Daniel, chap. xii., and that ἐπίλυσις means the 
answer given in ver. 12 to Daniel’s question in 
vet. 8, by which the indefinite statement of 
time is definitely fixed. This singular opinion 


is, however, contradicted by the single ex- 
pression πᾶσα. 

8 Macrob. i. 23: *feruntur divino spiritu, 
non suo arbitratu, sed quo Deus propellit.” 
Calvin correctly remarks: ‘impulsos fuisse 
dicit, non quod ment: alienati fuerint (qualem 
in suis prophetis ἐνθουσιασμόν fingunt gen- 
tiles), sed quia nihil a se ipsis ausi fuerint, tan- 
tum obedienter sequuti sunt Spiritum ducem.” 

4 Into this verse also Dietlein inserts mucb 
that is foreign, by saying in explanation of it: 
** not only are man and God placed in antithe- 


400 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


prophets, who are called ἅγιοι ἄνθρ. because they were in the service of 
God, inasmuch as they were the instruments of His πνεῦμα ἅγιον, cf. 1 Tim. 
Wie 1}: ᾿ 


sis to each other, but over against the designs § prophets only because that which He teaches 
of man and the unreal world of human possesses historical reality, or else will do so 
thoughts and conceptions (!) stands the Spirit _in time.” 

of God, which so powerfully takes hold of the 


CHAP. II, 401 


CHAPTER II. 


Ver. 2. ἀσελγείαις, according to almost all authorities, instead of the Rec. 
ἀπωλείαις, which only occurs in some min. — Ver. 4. σειραῖς]. Rec., after K, L, 
P, ete. (Tisch. 7); A, B, C. 8 (Lachm., Tisch. 8), have csecpoic, where it is uncer- 
tain whether this is to be regarded as an uncommon form for σειραῖς (perhaps by 
mistake), or another form for the more usual] σιροῖς (Pape: “σιρὸς, written also 
"σειρός : a pit, specially for preserving corn’’). The lect. is peculiar in A and δὲ: 
σειροῖς ζόφοις, in which σειροὶς is evidently an adjective, equal to ‘‘hot.’? Com- 
mentators take no notice of these various readings; Reiche rejects them; so, 
too, Hofmann, who says simply that the reading σίροις has no claim to atten- 
tion. — In place of the Rec. τετηρημένους (in several min., Thph., Oec.), Griesb., 
‘Tittm., Tisch. (Reiche), have accepted τηρουμένους, after B, C*, K, L, P.— 
Lachmann reads: κολαζομένους τηρεῖν (A, C**, 8, etc., Syr., Erp., Copt., Vulg., 
etc.); this appears, however, to be taken from ver. 9; Tisch.: fluvit ev. 9. 
— Ver. 6. The word καταστροφῇ is wanting in B, ΟἿ, 27, al., Copt. — Ver. 8. ὁ 
δίκαιος]. Lachm. omits ὁ, after B, without sufficient reason. — Ver. 9. Tisch. 7 
reads: πειρασμοῦ (Rec., according to almost all authorities); on the other hand, 
Tisch. 8 has πειρασμῶν, after δὲ, corr., and several min. Tischendorf’s observa- 
tion on πειρασμοῦ: quod multo magis usu venit, does not justify the reading 
accepted by him in ed. 8.—Ver. 11. παρὰ κυρίῳ]. Rec., after B, C, K, L, P, καὶ, 
etc., Thph., Oec. (Tisch. 8). — Lachm. and Tisch. 7 are hardly correct in omit- 
ting it; it is wanting in A, al., Syr., Erp., Vulg., etc. — Ver. 12. Instead of 
yeyevvnuéva (Rec., after A*, B, C, P, al., m., etc., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 7), 
A**, K, L, &, al., read: γεγενημένα (Tisch. 8). Whilst the Rec. has φυσικά before 
yey. (IK, L, al., pl., Oec.), Lachm. and Tisch. have placed it after yey. (A, B, C, 
P, &, al.), and rightly; the transposition is easily explained by assuming that it 
was thought necessary to connect γεγεννημένα directly with the εἰς ἅλωσιν belong- 
ing toit. Mill, without reason, regards yeyevv. as a scholion, which has come 
into the text by way of explanation of φυσικά, . Dietlien considers the Rec. to be 
the original reading. —xaragdapjoovra]. Rec., after C**, K, L, etc., Thph., Oec. 
(Griesb., Scholz); on the other hand, A, B, C, P, 8 (pr. m.), 7, al., Aeth., Arm., 
Syr., etc., support καὶ φθαρήῆσονται (Lachm. and Tisch.). This reading is to be 
preferred: καί gives peculiar point to the idea; since this was overlooked, and 
καί only regarded as being in the way, it might easily have been changed into 
kata, — Ver. 13. ἀπάταις]. Rec., after A*, C, K, L, P, 8, al., Copt., etc., Thph., 
Oec. (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch.). In its place, A**, B, Syr., Arr., Vulg., Ephr., 
etc., have ἀγάπαις: approved of by Erasmus, Luther, Camerarius, Grotius, ete. ; 
adopted into the text by Lachm.; though hardly justly, for in one passage 
(either here or Jude 12), ἀπάταις, as De Wette also thinks, is probably the origi- 
nal reading; if so, then rather here than in Jude, all the more that ὑμῶν (in 
Jude) may be adapted to ἀγάπαις, but not so much αὑτῶν; B has ἀγάπαις in both 
passages; C, on the other hand, ἀπάταις, which is explained by the one having 


402 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


stood originally in the one passage, and the other in the other. Elsner, Wolf, 
Wetstein, Bengel, De Wette, and the modern commentators generally, are in 
favor of ἀπάταις in this passage; so, too, Reiche. — Ver. 14. The reading μοιχαλίας 
in A, δὲ, several min., Copt., Vulg., etc., instead of μοιχαλίδος, can only be 
looked upon as a correction for the sake of simplification. — ἀκαταπαύστους]. Rec., 
after C, K, L, P, δὲ, ete. (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch.); instead of which Lachmann 
reads ἀκαταπάστους, following A, B, a word which does not occur elsewhere, and 
which Reiche accordingly declares to be an error in transcription; Buttmann, 
p. 57, thinks it is not unlikely that the original reading was καταπάστους, i.e., 
“‘nolluted, defiled,’ that then, by mistake, an a, perhaps taken from the previ- 
ous «at, had been added, out of which ἀκαταπαύστους arose. The reading occur- 
ring in several min., dkatamavorov, gives indeed an appropriate meaning, but 
cannot be regarded as original. — πλεονεξίας, the reading attested by A, B, C, K, 
L, P, κα, ete. (Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.), instead of the Rec. πλεονεξίαις, 
which is a mere correction. — Ver. 15. Tisch. 7 reads καταλιπόντες: Rec., after 
B***, C, K, L, P; Tisch. 8, on the contrary, has καταλείποντες, following A, B*, 
δὲ, etc. — Griesb. already has rightly omitted the article τὴν before εὐθεῖαν; it is 
opposed by almost all authorities. — Ver. 17. Instead of the Rec. νεφέλαι (L, ete., 
Thph., Oec.), Griesb. correctly has admitted ὁμίχλαι into the text, following A, 
B, C, δὰ, ete.; so, too, Scholz, Tisch., Lachm. On the other hand, Dietlein, 
though without sufficient reason, considers the Rec., which is evidently taken. 
from Jude 10, to be original; so, too, Reiche. — εἰς αἰῶνα, according to A, C, L, 
P, etc., Thph., Oec. —Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it (following B, δ); it 
seems to have been added from Jude 13; Reiche, however, regards it as original. 
— Ver. 18. The prepos. ἐν before ἀσελγ. in the ed. Elz. occurs in a few min., 
Theoph., Oec., only. —dAiywc, accepted by Griesb. already, in place of the Rec. 
ὄντως, according to the testimony of A, B, al., Syr., utr., Copt., etc., Aug., Hier. ; 
so, too, by Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. — ἀποφεύγοντας, after A, B, C, 8, many min., 
Syr., Arm., Vulg., ete. (Lachm., Tisch.), instead of the Rec. ἀποφυγόντας, 
according to K, L, P, ete. Reiche seeks to prove the originality of the Rec, 
from internal reasons, but these are insufficient; he prefers also ὄντως to ὀλίγως. 
— Ver. 19. Tisch. 7 has τούτῳ καὶ (Rec., according to A, C, K, L, P, ete.); on 
the other hand, Tisch. 8 has τούτῳ, and omits καί, following B, etc.; the greater 
number of authorities are in favor of the Rec. — Ver. 20. A, C, L, P, &, etc., 
read ἡμῶν after κυρίου (Lachm., Tisch. 8); the Rec. omits ἡμῶν, according to B, Καὶ 
(Tisch. 7).— Ver. 21. ἐπιστρέψαι]. Rec., according to K, L, al., Thph., Oec. 
(Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. 7, De Wette, etc.); Β, C, P, etc., read ὑποστρέψαι (Tisch. 
8); A, δὲ, on the other hand, has εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω ἀνακάμψαι ἀπό. This latter reading 
is probably only an explanatory gloss; but whether émorp. or ὑποστρ. be the 
original reading or not, it is difficult to decide with certainty; since the verb has 
not here the simple meaning of ‘‘ turning back,”’ but of ‘turning back again to 
what has gone before,’’ a meaning in no way peculiar to the expression ἐπιστρέφειν 
itself, without any nearer definition, it lies to hand to look upon ὑποστρέψαι as a 
correction. Lachm, has adopted εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω ὑποστρέψαι ἀπό; but no codex has 
this reading. — Ver. 22. In A, B, & (pr. m.), Sahid, (Lachm., Tisch.), δέ is 
wanting; it is probably added in order to connect ver. 22 more closely with ver. 
21. --- Τὴ the place of κίλισμα (A, K, L, P, &, etc., Lachm.), B, C*, 29 (Tisch.), 
have the form κυλισμόν. 


Ver. 1. From here onwards, a description of the false teachers, who 
were to arise in the church, and a warning against them. — ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ 


CHAP. II. 1. 403 


ψευδοπροφῆταῦ. dé: antithesis to what goes before. καί: “also,” that. is, 
besides the true prophets mentioned in chap. i. 21. The expression, wevdo- 
προφήτης, already in the O. T. LXX., e.g., Jer. vi. 18, frequently in the 
N. T., not after the analogy of ψευδολόγος : “one who prophesies falsely,” 
but “one who falsely gives himself out for a prophet,” on the analogy of pevda- 
δελφος, ψευδαπόστολος. ---ἐν τῷ λαῷ, 1.e., among the people of Israel. These 
words are in form a principal clause, but in thought a secondary clause: 
as there were false prophets in Israel, so will there be also among you, 
etc.— ὡς kal... ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι]. ἔσονται designates the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι as such, 
who would arise only in the future. They are afterwards pictured as 
actually present; see on this, the Introd., § 2, p. 281. The expression 
ψευδοδιδ, is in the N. T. ἀπ. Aey.; Wiesinger and Briickner interpret: “such 
as teach lies;” Dietlein and Fronmiiller: “such as lyingly pretend to be 
teachers.” The analogy of wevdorpo9., with which it is here contrasted, makes 
the last the preferable interpretation (thus, too, Hofmann). Both result in 
the same sense (Schott); what the ψευδοπροφῆται were in the O. T., the wevdo- 
διδάσκαλοι are in the N. T.—oirwec, equivalent to quippe qui, “such as.” — 
παρεισάξουσι; οἷ. Jude 4: “to introduce by the side of,’ with the secondary idea 
of secrecy.1— αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας]. αἱρέσεις, according to N. T. usage, “party- 
divisions,” cf. 1 Cor. xi. 19 (synonymous with σχίσματα) ; Gal. v. 20 (synony- 
mous with διχοστασίαι) ; also Tit. iii. 10, which have their origin in false 
doctrine; thus Brickner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.; Hofmann, too, says that 
the word is to be taken in no sense different from that which it has else- 
where in the N. T., but then interprets it as equivalent to “particular 
systems of opinion,” thus attributing to it a meaning which it has nowhere 
else. Others take αἵρεσις here to mean “false doctrine, heresy” (Bengel, 
De Wette, Fronmiiller). This interpretation is better suited to the connec- 
tion, and especially to the verb παρεισάγειν. In the N. T., doubtless, the 
word has not this meaning, yet Ignatius already uses it with this force. 
ἀπωλείας (which is not to be resolved into the adject. “destructive”) desig- 
nates the heresies as those which lead to ἀπώλεια; cf. vv. 2, 3. — καὶ τὸν ἀγορά- 
σαντα... ἀπώλειαν]. Winer (fifth edition, Ῥ. 399 f.) translates, “since they 
also, denying the Lord, draw upon themselves swift destruction ;” but the 
conpection of καί with ἐπάγοντες, so far removed from it by τὸν ἀγοράσαντα, 
«,7.A., cannot be justified. Fronmiiller connects the member of the clause 
beginning with καί not with the relative clause οἵτινες, but with ἔσονται wevdo- 
διδάσκαλοι. This construction was formerly supported in this commentary, 
with the remark, however, that a particular species of false doctrine was not, 
as Fronmiiller assumes, indicated here, but that the participial clause more 
nearly defined the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, καί being here put in the sense of “and 
withal ;” this construction, however, is any thing but natural. The καί must 
undoubtedly be connected with the clause immediately preceding, though 
not as a simple copula, but in the sense of “also;” thus De Wette and Wie- 


1 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that in with this secondary meaning, and without it 
classical Greek παρεισάγειν has not the second- (see Pape, 8.v.). 
ary meaning of secrecy; the verb occurs both 


404 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


singer,! taking καί as an intensification, equivalent to “even:” “whilst they 
deny even the Lord who bought them.” On the other hand, Hofmann does 
not admit any such intensification, and takes καί as equivalent to “also,” in 
the sense of addition, and interprets: “with their particular systems they 
break up the unity of the church, which, however, they do not do without 
at the same time denying the Lord.” But, on this interpretation, it is not 
clear why the author did not put the finite verb instead of the partic. ἀρνού- 
μενοι; the thought, too, that they break up the unity of the church, is simply 
imported. The participle shows that this clause is meant to serve as an 
explanation or a more precise definition of what goes before. De Wette’s 
view, accordingly, is to be preferred to that of Hofmann; it is, however, also 
possible that Schott is right in assuming an irregularity of the construction, 
in that the author, led astray by the participle ἀρνούμενοι, wrote the participle 
ἐπάγοντες instead of the finite verb ἐπάξουσι; in which case καί must be taken 
as a simple copula. — The participle ἐπάγοντες is connected in a loose fashion 
with what precedes, in the sense, “by which they,” etc. The ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι 
are more precisely characterized as τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι ; 
ἀρνούμενοι, cf. Jude 4; Bengel, correctly: doctrina et operibus. By δεσπότην 
Christ is here meant; the author speaks of Him thus, in order to lay stress 
on the fact that they deny that Christ is the Lord ; ἀγοράσαντα αὐτούς is added 
by way of emphasis: they deny the Lord who “bought” them, i.e., procured 
them for Himself by paying the purchase price. This does not only serve 
to emphasize more strongly what is reprehensible in the ἀρνεῖσθαι, but points 
out also that they deny the act to which allusion is made, and by which He 
has become their Lord. With ἀγοράζειν, ef. 1 Cor. vi. 20, vil. 23; Rev. v. 9; 
the blood of Christ must be thought of as the purchase price. — ἐπάγοντες 
ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν]. With ἐπάγ. ἑαυτοῖς, cf. ver. 5, as also Acts v. 28. 
ἑαυτοῖς indicates that they prepare an ἀπώλεια not only for others (αἱρέσεις ἀπω- 
λείας), but for themselves. — With ταχινῆν, see chap. i. 14, not a speedy ἀπώλεια; 
Hornejus, correctly: inopinatam et inexspectatam; the destruction will come 
over them suddenly, and before they are aware of it (Schott, Fronmiiller, 
Hofmann). 

Ver. 2. καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν]. The activity of these ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι 
would not be without result; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 17. With ἐξακολ. cf. chap. i. 16. 
- αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις, i.e., their ἀσέλγειαι will serve as a rule to many, so that 
they give themselves up to them; cf. Jude 4. The connection of erroneous 
doctrine with sensual excesses is shown in vv. 18, 19. --- δι’ οὖς... βλασφημη- 
θήσεται]. δι᾽ obc, not “by whom” (Vulg., per quas), but “on account of whom ;” 
they (either the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, or those led astray by them, or both) by their 
ἀσέλγειαι give those who are not Christians occasion for βλασφημία against the 
ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας ; cf. 1 Tim. vi. 1; Rom. ii. 24. ἡ ὁδὺς τῆς ἀληθείας (Barnab. 
c.v.: via veritatis), a designation of Christianity or of the Christian religion 
(cf. on the expression ὁδός, Acts ix. 2, xix. 9, 23, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, xvi. 17, 


1 Winer (6thed., p.314 [E. T., 441], 7thed., ἐπάγοντες is annexed to the clause οἵτινες . « - 
p. 329) says: ‘* Both participles, apy. and ἐπάγ.» ἀρνούμενοι; he does not state how xa is to 
are connected with παρεισάξουσιν ; they are not, be understood. 
however, co-ordinate with each other, but 


CHAP. II. 3, 4. 405 
xviii. 25), in so far as it is the form of life in harmony with divine truth 
(not leading to the truth). 

Ver. 3. καὶ ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ, i.e., as it were, encompassed by covetousness, living 
in it, governed by it; it is incorrect to translate ἐν by διά. πλαστοῖς λόγοις]. ἅπ. 
hey., 1.€., “ with deceitfully invented words,” 1 which are not in accordance with 
truth; incorrectly, Hofmann: “artfully contrived doctrines.” — ὑμᾶς ἐμπορεύ- 
σονται, “they will seek gain of you;” Gerhard: quaestum ex vobis facient, ad 
quaestum suum vobis abutentur; thus, too, Wiesinger, Schott, De Wette- 
Briickner; cf. also Winer, p. 209 (E. T., 223); this meaning of the verb 
ce. ace. in classical Greek is sufficiently assured.?, The πλαστοὶ λόγοι are not, 
as Hofmann supposes, “to be thought of as the merchandise which they 
bring to the market, in order to be repaid for such instruction,” but as the 
means by which they carry on the ἐμπορεύεσθαι. Steinfass translates ἐμπο- 
ρεύεσθαι as equivalent to “to buy,” and ὑμᾶς as the direct object of purchase ; 
thus Pott too: vos sectae suae conciliare conantur. It is undeniable that the 
object traded in may stand in the accusative (cf. Prov. iii. 14, LXX.), but 
the context here is opposed to this, partly on account of the ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ, 
partly because this thought is already contained in the preceding verse. 
Fronmiiller incorrectly renders the word by “to deceive.” — By deceitful 
words as to Christian freedom, etc., they sought to delude others, and, in 
accordance with their covetous desires, to make gain of them; cf. vv. 13, 14, 
and Jude 16. —oic¢ τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ]. οἷς : dat. incommodi; refers to 
the subj. in ἐμπορεύσονται. τὸ κρῖμα is the judgment of God ordering the 
ἀπώλεια. ἔκπαλαι is not to be combined with τὸ κρῖμα into one idea, equal to 
κρῖμα ἔκπαλαι αὐτοὶς προγεγραμμένον ; cf. Jude 4 (Pott, De Wette); such a mode 
of combination is to be found nowhere in the N. T. It belongs rather to 
οὐκ ἀργεῖ. There is not, as De Wette insists, any contradiction involved in 
this connection, especially as οὐκ ἀργεῖ is a positive idea; strictly, “is not 
inactive, does not tarry;” the idea of haste is not implied in it (De Wette). 
ἔκπαλαι sets forth prominently that for a long time the judgment has, as it 
were, been approaching, that is, ever since it was given and pronounced; 
it is living, and will come in due time. It is possible that ἔκπαλαι refers to 
the judgments mentioned in ver. 4, formerly put into execution (Dietlein, 
Scott, Wiesinger), which, however, Hofmann disputes. —xai ἡ ἀπώλεια αὑτῶν 
(ver. 1) ob νυστάζει]. νυστάζειν, strictly, “to nod ;” then, to slumber (only else- 
where in Matt. xxv. 5; there, however, in its literal meaning), is used in the 
classics in a figurative sense; Plato, De Repub., iii. 405 C: μηδὲν δεῖσθαι vucta- 
ζοντος δικαστοῦ. Steinfass, inexactly, “to become sleepy.” 

Ver. 4. From here to ver. 6, three examples of divine judgment; cf. 
Jude 5 ff. — First example: the fallen angels, Jude 6.— εἰ yap]. The apo- 
dosis is wanting; Gerhard supplies: οὐδ᾽ ἐκείνοις φείσεται. In thought, if not 


1 Plato, Apol. Socrat.: πλάττειν λόγους; 
Artemidor., i. 23: πλάσσειν δόκει. .. ἀγαθὸν 
ῥήτορσι... διὰ τὸ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα δεικνύειν 


ἐνεπορεύετο τὴν λήθην τῶν δικαστῶν. J. Chry- 


sostom: τὴν πενίαν τοῦ πλησίου ἐμπορεύεσθαι. 
The translation of the Vulg. is inexact: ‘‘de 


Tas τέχνας ταύτας. 
2 Cf. Athenag., xiii. 569: ᾿Ασπασία ἐνεπο- 
ρεύετο πλήθη γυναικῶν. Philo in Flacc., p. 984: 


vobis negotiabuntur;’’ as also that of Luther: 
** they will trade with you.” 


406 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


in form, the latter half of ver. 9 constitutes the apodosis (Winer, 529 f. 
(E. T., 569), De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, and the more modern writers 
generally). The irregularity of the construction is explained by the fact 
that the third example is dwelt on at much length. —6 Θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτη- 
σάντων οὐκ égeioato]. The nature of the sin is not stated; otherwise in Jude.1 
What sin the apostle refers to, is only faintly hinted at by the circumstance 
that the example of the flood immediately follows. It is less likely (against 
Wiesinger) that ver. 20 contains any reference to it, for in that verse other 
sins are conjoined with the ὀπίσω σαρκὸς... πορεύεσθαι. --- ἀλλὰ σειραῖς ζύφου. . . 
τηρουμένους, “but (when he) having cast (them) down into Tartarus, hath delivered 
them over to the chains of darkness, as being reserved unto the judgment.” σειραὶς 
ζόφου is mostly taken in connection with raprapdoug (sc. δεδεμένους) (De Wette: 
“but cast them down into hell with chains of darkness”); but, since the 
added ζόφου shows that the σειραί are designated as fetters, which belong to 
the darkness of Tartarus (not “fetters which consist in darkness” (Schott), 
nor “fetters by which they were banished into darkness,” as Hofmann ‘ex- 
plains), the enchaining could only have taken place there, and therefore 
(with Calov, Pott, Steinfass, Hofmann, Wahl, s.v., παραδίδωμι) it is preferable 
to connect the words with παρέδωκεν (as opposed to De Wette, Briickner, 
Dietlein, Wiesinger, etc.).2— Instead of cepaic ζόφου, Jude has δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις - 
ζόφος is not Tartarus itself, but the darkness of Tartarus; the word is to be 
found only here and in Jude. — raprapoiy does not mean tartaro adjudicare 
(Crusius, Hypomn., I., p. 154), but “to remove into Tartarus” (cf. Homer, J/., 
Vili. 13: 7 μιν ἑλὼν ῥίψω εἰς τάρταρον ἢερόεντα). The expression τάρταρος occurs 
nowhere else either in the N. T. or ΠΧ Χ. It is not equal to ἄδης, which is 
the general term for the dwelling-place of the dead. Nor does the author 
use it as Synonymous with yeévva, for that is “the place of final punishment, 
the hell-fire” (Fronmiiller) but it is used to designate “the place of prelimi- 
nary custody.” — παρέδωκεν here, as often, used with the implied idea of pun- 
ishment. — εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους]. κρίσις is the final judgment (κρίσις μεγάλης 
ἡμέρας) ; “as those who are reserved for the judgment ;” Luther, inexactly; “in 
order to reserve them.” — On the reading, παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν κολαζομένους τηρεῖν, 
the infin. τηρεῖν is dependent on zaped., and κολαζ. states, not “the purpose -for 
which, but the condition in which, they are reserved for judgment; the Vulg. 
therefore translates inexactly : tradidit cruciandos, in judicium reservari. Diet- 
lein, in opposition to all reliable authorities, insists on reading, τετηρημένους, 
which, moreover, he incorrectly paraphrases, “as those who once should have 
been kept;” it must rather be, “as those who (until now) have been kept.” 

Ver. 5. Second example: the flood. This is peculiar to the author of 
this epistle; cf. the corresponding section in Jude. καὶ ἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ 
ἐφείσατο]. The clausal formation is the same as that in ver. 4. Subaudienda 


1 Fronmiiller is wrong in asserting that the becomes more drastic if the act of casting into 
apostasy of Satan is meant here; it cannot be Tartarus be completed only by the binding with 
doubted that the sin meant here isthe same as _— chains,” this supports the construction to 
that of which Jude speaks, and it is not that which he objects. Schott translates, altogether 
apostasy; see my Comment. on Jude. unwarrantably : “ but has fastened them down 

2 When Briickner says: ‘tthe expression into the depths with chains of darkness.” 


CHAP. II. 8. 407 


est particula: ei (Gerhard). The words which follow on this tell in what 
the οὐκ ἐφείσατο consisted: κατακλυσμὸν, x.7.A.; there is no mention here of a 
“ destruction” (Schott) of the world. — apy. κόσμος, i-e., mundus antedilu- 
vianus. — ἀλλ᾽... ἐφύλαξε]. The thought of the deliverance of the righteous 
is connected with that of the destruction of the ungodly; ef. ver. 7. — ὄγδοον 
belongs not to «jpuxa,? but directly to Νῶε; Luther, correctly: Noah with 
seven others; cf. Winer, p. 234 (E. T., 249); Buttmann, p. 26 (E. T., p. 30). 
There is nothing to show that the number eight has a mystical meaning 
here (Dietlein).2- The mention of it naturally arose from the recollection 
of the event; at the same time, however, it marks the small number of the 
saved contrasted with that of those who perished (Bengel, Schott, etc.). 
Besides, Noah and those with him, as also Lot afterwards, are taken by the 
author as types of the εὐσεβεῖς (ver. 9), on whom the judgment of God will 
not come — δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα is added as the reason of God’s preservation 
(ἐφύλαξε) (thus, too, Wiesinger). By δικαιοσυνη is to be understood here, not 
the condition of being justified (Wiesinger), but a believing and godly bear- 
ing towards God; otherwise in Heb. xi. 7. --- κατακλυσμόν]. Matt. xxiv. 38, 
39: Gen. v. 17, LXX. Heb. 32: the verb κατακλύζειν, chap. 111. 6.— 
κόσμῳ ἀσεβῶν, antithesis to δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα; the world is thus named, inas- 
much as it had become the dwelling-place of ungodly humanity. — ἐπάξας: 
on this form of the aorist, see Buttmann, Ausf. Gr., ὃ 114, s.v. ἄγω. 


REMARK. — With regard to its position, Dietlein insists that this verse is 
intimately connected with ver. 4, so that ‘‘the judgment of imprisonment on 
the angels must be considered as one and the same event with the Noachic 
flood;”’ that the judgment on the ἀρχαῖος κόσμος, vv. 4, 5, must be distinguished 
from the judgment of God within the second world (ver. 6); and that the latter 
only, not the former, must be regarded as the example, strictly so called; thus, 
too, Schott. But the whole structure and mode of expression of this section are 
opposed to any such division; for (1) The clauses are simply co-ordinate (as 
ver. 5 is joined to ver. 4, so is ver. 6 to ver. 5, merely by «ai); (2) The dpyaioc 
κόσμος is mentioned only here, not in ver. 4; (3) What is stated in ver. 6 is not 
brought prominently forward as an event taking place in the new world; (4) In 
the idea of the κόσμος ἀσεβων, the angels cannot be included, since the flood came 
on the ungodly men only; and it is arbitrary and strange to assume that the 
flood buried mankind ‘‘in the depths, and those spirits which in sin had taken 
up their abode with them ’”’ (Schott). It is arbitrary to regard the judgment on 
Sodom as the only proper example, since no other position is given to the judg- 
ments mentioned in vv. 4, 5, than to that in ver. 6. The chief reason for the 
division lies in ver. 9, which consists of two members, due, however, to the two 
foregoing examples. From the fact that only one of the members applies to 
ver. 4, it does not follow that there no special example can be intended; the less 
so that the leading idea is not “the deliverance of the righteous,’”’ but ‘‘ the 
confinement of the ungodly.’’ Equally little is proved by the repetition of the 


1 Heinsius, Lightfoot, and Schwegler in his of the eight, and saw in the church saved from 
Nachapost. Zeitalter, 1. p.515; cf.,as opposed the flood a holy eight, making a final close 
to him, Uilgenfeld, Clement., p. 185. to the old world.” 

2 « Peter looked upon Noah as the bearer 


408 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


verb οὐκ, ἐφείσατο, which serves rather to mark off the ἀρχαῖος xéouoc from 
the ἀγγελ. ἁμαρτ., not to unite them into one idea. Even Brickner has rejected 
the view of Dietlein and Schott. Hofmann, too, while questioning it, ap- 
proaches it very closely when he says, ‘* The judgment of the flood was also a 
judgment upon those spirits which had become involved in the sin and in the 
fate of the race of men then living.” 


Ver. 6. Third example: The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah; cf. 
Jude 7. — This verse also is still dependent on εἰ. Schott, without any ade- 
quate reason, asserts that the author “has even here forgotten the construc- 
tion of his expression in the protasis with ei.” — πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Toudppac]. 
The gen. as apposition. — τεφρώσας]. Suidas: equivalent to ἐωπρῆσας, σπο- 
δώσας: “by burning them to ashes, by reducing them to ashes.” — καταστροφῇ κατέ- 
κρινεν, Not equal to eversione 8. subversione damnavit,ie., unditus evertendo 
punwit (Gerhard, Dietlein, Schott), but καταστροφῇ is the dative of reference; 
see Buttmann, p. 144; cf. κατακρ θανάτῳ, Matt. xx. 18; Pott, correctly: in 
cmeres redigens damnavit ad everstonem; thus also Wahl, De Wette, Wie- 
singer, Steinfass, Fronmiiller, Hofmann; only it must be here remarked 
that κατακρίνειν includes within it the punishment, the putting into execution 
of the judgment of condemnation — which Hofmann, without reason, denies, 
οἵ. Rom. viii. 3.—It is incorrect to connect καταστροφῇ with τεφρώσας (Ben- 
gel). — xaraorpoon, in the N. T. besides here, only in 2 Tim. ii. 14; there, 
however, in a figurative sense; the same word occurs in the narrative of the 
destruction of the cities of the plain, Gen. xix. 29, LX.X. — ὑπόδειγμα μελ- 
λόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικῶς. Jude 7, with ὑπόδειγμα, not equal to “example,” but 
to “type,” cf. Jas. v. 10; Heb. iv. 11, ete. The perf. τεθεικώς corresponds 
with the προκεινται, Jude 7: Hofmann, correctly: “God has made them, as 
the perf. shows, a lasting type of those who ever afterwards should live a 
godless life.” } 

Ver. 7. Contrast to the divine justice in punishing, which is not to be 
found in Jude. Wiesinger: “The expansion of the thought, introduced 
by the mention antithetically of Noah, ver. 5, gains, by the co-ordination 
(xai) of the deliverance of Lot, independent value, and prepares the way for 
the double inference, ver. 9 " --- καί has not here an adversative force (Jach- 
mann), but is simply the copulative particle. — δίκαιον Λώτ]. δίκαιος here like 
δικαιοσύνη, ver. ὅ. --- καταπονούμενον, besides here, in Acts vii. 24 (2 Mace. 
viii. 2, where, however, it is doubtful whether the reading should be κατα- 
πονούμενον OF καταπατούμενον); Pott, Schol. Soph. in Trachin., v. 328, verba: 
ἀλλ᾽ elev ὠδινοῦσα exponit per καταπονουμένη. --- ὑπὸ Tie . . . ἐῤῥύσατο]. ὑπό belongs 
not to ἐῤῥύσατο, but to καταπον.; οἵ. Winer, p. 346 (E. T., 369) ;— with ἡ ἐν 
ἀσελγ. ἀναστροφῆ, οἷ. 1 Pet. i. 17. — ἀθέσμων, besides here only in chap. 111. 17; 
homines nefarii, qui nec jus nec fas curant (Gerhard). 

Ver. 8. Explanation of the καταπονούμενον. --- βλέμματι yap καὶ ἀκοῇ is to be 
joined neither with δικαίος (Vulg.: adspectu et auditu justus erat), nor with 
ἐγκατοικῶν (Gerhard), but with the finite verb; it was by seeing and hearing 


1 Hofmann attaches particular importance was effected by water was followed by an- 
to the circumstance, that the judgment which other, which was effected by fire. 


CHAP. II. 9, 10. 409 
that Lot’s soul suffered, and is added in order more strongly to emphasize 
Lot’s painful position among the ungodly. — ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασά- 
vigev, “he vexed his righteous soul by the ungodly works,” i.e., his soul, because 
it was righteous, felt vexation at the evil which he was obliged to see and 
hear. “ἐβασάνιζεν serves to show that the pain at the sight of the sinful lives 
arose out of personal activity, out of inclination of the soul to the good, out 
of positive opposition to the evil” (Dietlein). The earlier interpreters have 
for the most part missed the correct idea; Calvin, Hornejus, Pott, De Wette, 
and the modern commentators generally, having interpreted correctly. 

Ver. 9. This verse in thought, though not in form, constitutes the apo- 
dosis to the preceding clauses beginning with ei. The thought, however, is 
expressed in a more extended and general manner; the special application 
follows in ver. 10. —o/ide]. Knowledge is conceived at the same time as a 
divine power. — κύριος, i.e., God, ver. 4. — εὐσεβεῖς, like Noah and Lot. —é& 
πειρασμοὺ ῥύεσθαι, cf. 1 Pet. 1. 6. — ἀδίκους δέ, like the fallen angels, etc. — εἰς 
ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολαζομενους τηρεῖν]. κολαζ, is not used here with a future force: 
cruciandos (Bengel, Calvin, Winer, who, in his fifth edition, p. 405, resolves 
the clause thus: ddex. τηρεῖ (Gore) κολάζειν, and others) but it must be taken as 
a real present; it refers to the punishment which they suffer even before the 
last judgment unto which they are kept (τηρεῖν) ; cf. on ver. 4. Thus also 
Wiesinger, Schott, Bruckner. 

Ver. 10. Compare Jude 8. — μάλιστα δὲ in close connection to what imme- 
diately precedes. The author passes from the general, to those against 
whom this epistle is specially directed. Dietlein introduces a foreign refer- 
ence when he says, “ The apostle means the false teachers in contrast to such 
ungodly persons as did not base their ungodliness on theoretically developed 
error.” — As in Jude, the false teachers are characterized in two respects. 
Whilst in vv. 1-3 they are spoken of as yet to appear, they are here described 
as already present. — τοὺς ὀπίσω... πορευομένους ; cf. besides Jude 8 also 7, 
and the commentary on the passage. — σαρκὸς stands here without ἑτέρας, and 
must therefore be taken more generally. Buttmann (p. 160) wrongly trans- 
lates σάρξ here by “lusts.” — év ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ]. μιασμοῦ is not to be resolved 
into an adjec.: cupiditas foeda, impura (Wahl) ;? but it 1s the objective geni- 
tive, and states that to which the ἐπιθυμία is directed (De Wette-Bruckner, 
Wiesinger, Schott, etc.).— μιασμός, ἅπ. Aey., equivalent to pollutio. Accord- 
ing to Schott, μιασμός is here used subjectively, “what to themselves is dis- 
honoring to the human body, that they make the object of their wild lust.” 
—kal κυριοτητος καταφρονοῦντες, cf. Jude 8, and the exposition. — τολμηταί]. 
The author drops the construction hitherto adopted, and begins a new 
clause; the word is a dz, λεγ. equal to “insolent, daring;” Luther: “ thiirs- 


1 Cf. Xenophon, Hist. Graec., 1. 4, Ὁ. 407: 
ὥστ᾽ ἐνίους Kal τῶν τυπτομένων, νομίμων δὲ 
ὄντων ἀνθρώπων, ἀδημονῆσαι τὰς ψυχὰς, ἰδόντας 
τὴν ἀσέβειαν; Only it must be observed that 
Lot was vexed at the godlessness in itself, not 
because he personally had to suffer by it. 

2 Hofmann also renders the idea by ‘‘im- 
pure desire, filthy lust,’’ which, taking μιασμοῦ 


as an attributive genitive, he interprets more 
closely thus: “ἃ lust which brings defilement 
with it, since it pollutes not only him who 
gratifies it, but him also on whom it is grati- 
fied;’’ but in this interpretation the two ex. 
pressions, “‘impure lust” and ‘lust which 
pollutes,” are erroneously taken as identical. 


410 — THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


tig”’ (i.e., bold, from the root tarr; in old High German, gaturstig).1— αὐθά- 
deve, to be found, besides here, only in Tit. 1. 7. --- Most modern expositors 
understand the two words substantively ; but as αὐθάδης is strictly an adject., 
it can here also be taken as such; thus Schott. It is improbable that they 
form a passionate exclamation (Schott). They may be either connected in 
a loose way as subject with οὐ τρέμουσ:, or they may be regarded as an ante- 
cedent apposition to the subject of τρέμουσι (Hofmann). — δόξας οὐ τρέμουσι 
βλασφημοῦντες]. For δύξας see Jude 8. The particip. stands here as in chap. 
i.19. Vulg., strangely: sectas non metuunt (introducere, facere) blasphemantes. 

Ver. 11. Compare Jude 9 What Jude says specially of the archangel 
Michael] is here more generally affirmed of angels. In this its generality the 
thought is hardly intelligible; the necessary light is obtained only by com- 
paring it with Jude (De Wette). If the priority of this epistle be assumed, 
the thought here expressed must have reference to Zech. 111. 2 (thus Schott, 
Steinfass, Hofmann). — ὅπου cannot stand here as assiguing the reason, as it 
sometimes does in the classics, since it refers back uot to τολμηταί, but to 
δοξας οὐ, «.7.4.; but neither is 1t equal to “ whilst even, since even;” this use 
can nowhere be established. It is meant rather to indicate the similarity of 
the relationship (with respect to the dofw).2_ The adversative relationship 
lies not in the particle, but in the thought. — ἄγγελοι, according to the parallel 
passage, not evil, but good, angels. — ἰσχύϊ καὶ δυνάμει μείζονες ὄντες]. The com- 
parative expresses the relation in which they stand either to the τολμηταί or 
to the δόξαι, The latter reference deserves the preference, since—and to 
this Hofmann has called attention, Schriftbew. I., Ὁ. 460 —it is understood 
of itself that angels are more powerful than men (Wiesinger, Schott, Stein- 
fass).— οὐ φέρουσι. .. κρίσιν]. φέρειν κρίσιν (Jude: ἐπιφέρειν κρίσιν) does not 
mean “to endure a judgment” (Luth.), but “to pronounce a judgment.” — 
βλασφημόν, With an eye to βλασφημοῦντες --- κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ; not adversum se (Vulg.), 
but αὐτὼν goes back to dogac (Calvin, Beza, Hornejus, Wolf, De Wette, and 
all the more modern interpreters, with the exception of Fronmiiller), by 
which are to be understood here — as in Jude —the diabolical powers. The 
opposite interpretation, according to which the meaning should be that the 
wicked angels are not able to bear the judgment of God on their blasphemy 
(Luther, Fronmuiller, etc.), is opposed not only to the language (βλάσφημος 
κρισις equal to κρίσις βλασφημίας) but to the context. — παρὰ κυριῳῇ. These 
words, the genuineness of which is doubtful, may not be explained with 
Bengel: apud Dominum .. . reveriti, abstinent judicio: for, as Hofmann 
justly remarks, παρὰ κυρ. “belongs to that which is denied, and does not 
explain why that does not happen which is denied.” “The conception is, 
that angels appear before God, and, before His throne, tell what evil spirits 
are doing in the world.” Cf. Winer, p. 369 (E. T., 395). 

Ver. 12. Compare Jude 10. With all their similarity the two passages 
are nevertheless very different. The characteristics are still further de- 


1 Cf. Pischon, Erkldr. der hauptsdchl. ver- such as: “‘some laugh where others weep,” 
alteten deutschen Worter in der Luth. Bibelt- thus here, these rail where the angels ov φέρου- 
bers., Berl., 1844, p. 7. σιν, «.T.A, It must not be interpreted, with 

2 It corresponds to “where”? in passages Hofmann, as equal to καθ᾽ ὧν. 


CHAP. 11. 12. 4h 


_ scribed in Jude 10, but here the punishment is promised to these men. — 
ovro dé, antithesis to dyyeAu; the predicate belonging to it is φθαρῆσονται. --- ὡς 
ἀλογα ζῶα . . . φθορὰν]. Parenthetical thought in close relation to φθαρῆσονται ; 
Grotius: ita peribunt illi, sicut pereunt muta animantia. — γεγεννημένα φυσικά can 
hardly be translated “born as sensuous beings to,” etc. (Wiesinger, and 
formerly in this commentary). φυσικά is meant rather to bring out that the 
irrational animals are, according to their natural constitution, born to ἅλωσις. 
Hofmann takes φυσικά as a second attribute added to γεγεννημένα by asynde- 
ton, equal to “by nature determined to ἅλωσις," ete. But the only objection 
to this is that γεγεννημένα alone cannot well be considered as a special attri- 
bute. As regards the sense, it makes no difference whether φυσικά be placed 
before (Rec.) or after γεγενν. ---- εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν]. According to Luther, a 
twofold rendering is possible: “ First, those who take and strangle; second, 
who are to be taken, strangled, and slaughtered;” the latter is the only cor- 
rect interpretation. The general interpretation is, “for taking and destroy- 
ing;” Schott on the other hand translates, “for taking and consuming ;” 
and Hofmann, in like manner, who holds that both are active ideas, “that 
they may be taken and consumed.” This interpretation of φθορά, however, is 
arbitrary, and all the more unwarranted, that in the subsequent ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ 
αὐτῶν, φθορα cannot have this special meaning. According to N. T. usage, 
what is meant by φθορὰ here is the destruction to which the beasts are des- 
tined ; cf. Col. 11. 22. — ἐν ole ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες... φθαρήσονται)]. With 
regard to the construction, cf. Winer, p. 583 (E. T., 628). According to 
the usual interpretation, ἐν oi¢ is dependent on βλασφημοῦντες, and is to be 
resolved into ἐν τούτοις, ἃ ἀγνοοῦσιμ, βλασφ. (Winer decides in favor of this; 
so, too, Wiesinger, and Buttmann, p. 128 [E. T., 1467). But ἐν οἷς may 
also be dependent on ἀγνοοῦσιν, and be resolved, ταῦτα, ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν, βλασφη- 
μοῦντες. There is no other instance to be found of the construction βλασφημεῖν 
ἐν, although βλασφημεῖν εἰς occurs frequently. Buttmann accordingly says 
- that by ἐν here (not the object strictly speaking, but) “rather the sphere is 
denoted, within which the evil-speaking takes place;” nor is the combina- 
tion of ἀγνοεῖν with ἐν common, “yet it is not without example in later writ- 
ings.” 1 That ἀγνοεῖν, in the sense of it, may be joined with ἐν, is shown by 
the German expression, “to be ignorant in a matter.” Besides, in both 
constructions the sense is substantially the same. According to the comec- 
tion with what precedes (ver. 10) and Jude 8 and 10, the δόξαι are to be 
understood as that which was unknown to them, and to which their slanders 
had reference. On account of this irrational evil-speaking, that will happen 
to them which is expressed in the words, ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται. 
φθορά has been understood here to mean moral corruption; thus De Wette- 
Brickner, Steinfass, Fronmiiller; erroneously, however, for the word must 
have the same meaning in this passage as it had formerly; then, in this 
case, αὐτὼν does not refer to the Libertines, but to the ζῶα before mentioned, 
and xai is to be explained from the comparison with these. They (the Lib- 
ertines) whose irrational slander of that of which they are ignorant, makes 


1 It is to be found in Test. XI. patr.in Fabricius cod. pseudepigr. V. T., p. 717. 


412 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 

them like unto the irrational brutes, will also suffer φθορά, like the latter, 
who by nature are destined thereto. Entirely different from this, however, 
is the interpretation given by Hofmann. He resolves ἐν οἷς into ἐν τούτοις 4, 
and takes ἐν τούτοις with φθαρῆσονται; that which, without knowing it, they 
speak evil of, is, according to him, the things of sense; he understands ἐν τῇ 
φθορᾷ αὐτῶν to be in more definite and explanatory apposition to ἐν τούτοις, 
and φθορά actively, equivalent to “abuse.” In his view, then, the idea here 
expressed is that the Libertines by abusing, after their lusts, the things of 
sense, believing them to have nothing in common with God, fall a prey to 
destruction. The objections to this interpretation are, first, that ἐν οἷς is not 
applied to any of the verba near it, but to the remote φθαρήσονται ; secondly, 
that a meaning is attributed to the second φθορά different from that of the 
first, — the one is taken as equivalent to “consumption,” the other to 
“abuse,”—and that neither of these significations belongs in any way 
to the word; thirdly, that the reference to the things of sense is in no way 
alluded to in the context; fourthly, that ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ cannot possibly be in 
apposition to ἐν τούτοις ; and lastly, that, on this interpretation, we should 
have had ἀγνοοῦντες βλασφήμουσι instead of ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες. 

Ver. 13. κομιούμενοι μισθὸν ἀδικίας is subjoined by way of explanation to 
what precedes.? — Cf. 1 Pet. i. 9. — μισθὸν ἀδικεας not equivalent to μισθὸν ἄδικον 
(Wolf), but “the reward for unrighteousness.” — ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι]. This and 
the following participles, as far as the end of ver. 14, are connected with 
what precedes, as descriptive of the ἀδικία ; it is less probable that, as Hof- 
mann assumes, a new period begins with ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι and ends with 
ver. 16. The three kinds of ἀδικία here spoken of are: 1, luxurious living; 
2, fornication; 3, covetousness. De Wette: “they who count it pleasure.” — 
τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφῆν]. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ is by Oecumenius interpreted as equal to καθ' 
ἡμέραν, but this is not in accordance with the usage. Several interpreters 
(Benson, Morus, Fronmiiller, Hofmann) take ἡμέρα here as in contrast to the 
night. This, however, is inappropriate, for it is not easy to see why they 
should not regard the τρυφῆ in the night as a pleasure. Gerhard is better: 
per τὴν ἡμέραν intelligitur praesentis vitae tempus, Luther, “temporal luxurious 
living’ (De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott). It stands by way of con- 
trast to the future, to which the fut. κομιούμενοι refers. —omido καὶ μῶμοι is 


κομιούμενοι to be the original, because the 
more difficult one. Tisch. 8, on the other 


1 Schott agrees with Hofmann in regard to 
the application to things of sense, and to the 


interpretation of the meaning of the first φθορά, 
but differs from him in other points. He states 
the idea contained in the verse thus: ‘ As irra- 
tional beasts, which ... made to be taken 
and consumed ... come to destruction, so 
these people shall perish; since they rail at 
those matters which they do not comprehend, 
they themselves shall perish in and with the 
destruction of those things against which they 
rail.” This interpretation is quite as unwar- 
rantable as that of Hofmann. 

2 Hofmann considers the reading ἀδικούμε- 
vor— but little attested, however —instead of 


hand, says: “ἀδικούμενοι, 8i aptum sensum 
praebere judicabitur, omnino praeferendum 
erit.”” Nescio an ‘“‘decepti circa μισθὸν ἀδι- 
xvas” verti liceat. Hofmann interprets the 
accus, μισθόν as an accus, of apposition, cf. 
2 Cor. vi. 18, and then translates: “ evil hap- 
pens to them as the reward of evil;”’ but 
though ἀδικεῖν occurs in this wider significa- 
tion, as in Luke x. 19, and often in Revelation, 
still ἀδικια never does. —Buttmann has ac- 
cepted, not ἀδικούμενοι, a8 in B, but κομιούμε- 
vol. 


CHAP. II. 14. 413 


either to be connected with what follows: “who as σπ. καὶ μῶμοι riot” (De 
Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger), or they are independent expressions of dis- 
pleasure, like τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις formerly in ver. 10, and κατάρας τέκνα afterwards 
(Schott, Fronmiiller) subjoined to what precedes by way of apposition (Hof- 
mann); the latter is most in harmony with the animated form of address. 
Instead of oxida, Jude has σπιλάδες : σπῖλοι (less commonly σπίλοι) is equivalent 
to “spots of dirt,’ cf. Eph. v. 27. — μῶμοι : Gx. Aey., commonly “blame, shame ;”" 
here “ blemishes.” !—évrpugavrec ἐν ταὶς ἀπάταις αὑτῶν]. ἐντρυφῶντες points back 
to τρυφῆν, and may not therefore be taken, with Hofmann, in the weakened 
meaning of, “to take delight in any thing,” which it probably has in Isa. 
lv. 2, LXX.; it is not to be connected with the following ὑμῖν in the sense 
of: illudere, ludibrio habere, but means, as it commonly does, “to riot ;” 
belongs to συνευωχούμενοι, --- ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν is explained from vv. 3 and 
14; they practised deceit in this way, that they succeeded in procuring 
earthly advantage to themselves, by praising their vain wisdom (Wiesinger, 
Fronmiiller); since ἐντρυφᾷν denotes the actual rioting, ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν 
cannot state the object of their ἐντρυφᾶν, that is, “the lies with which they 
practise deceit” (Hofmann; or, according to Schott: “their deceiving ap- 
pearance of wisdom”). The opinion of Wolf and others, that ἀπάται means 
the love-feasts, inasmuch as they — in opposition to their real nature —are 
abused by these individuals to their own profit, requires no refutation. -- - 
συνευωχούμενοι ὑμὶν is subordinate to what precedes. They rioted in their 
deceits, that is to say, by enjoying themselves at the feasts of those among 
whom they had obtained an entrance by deceit. — Luther’s translation is 
mistaken: “they make a show of your (ὑμὼν instead of αὐτῶν) alms (incorrect 
interpretation of ἀγάπαις), they revel with what is yours” (instead of “with 
you”). : 

Ver. 14 has no parallel in Jude. — Description of the sensual lust of the 
eye of the false teachers. — ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος]. The adulter- 
ous lust is depicted in their eyes; in the expression, μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος, the lust 
after the μοιχαλίς, revealing itself in the eyes, is designated as a being filled 
of the eye with it, since they look at nothing else but this. The interpreta- 
tion οἵ. Hornejus is not to the point: quasi dicat, tam libidinosos eos esse, ut in 
ipsorum oculis quasi adulterae habitent, seu ut adulteras semper in oculis ferant. 
— Hofmann explains μεστός τινος by reference to Plato, Sympos. 194 B, here 
equivalent to “to be entirely engrossed, pre-occupied with something.” —It is 
wrong to suppose (as Dietlein does) that it is here in any way stated that a 
female member of the house, into which they had forced themselves, had 
already fallen a victim to their seduction. Calvin even? had connected this 
verse closely with the preceding, as Schott and Hofmann do; but it is not 
easy to understand why the persons here described should have had adulter- 


ὑμῖν 


1 Hofmann arbitrarily defines these expres- 3 Calvin: ‘‘Isti vos ac coetum vestrum 
81008 more precisely as ‘‘ spots which defile the foedis maculis aspergunt: nam dum epulantur 
purity of the church, blemishes which attach vobiscum, simul luxuriantur in suis erroribus, 
to her, to her shame;”’ they are rather spoken amores meretricios et perditam incontinentiam 
of thus, because both defilement and shame oculis gestuque exprimunt.” 
cleave to them. 


414 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 

ous desires only at the feasts. — καὶ ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας, “not satiated, un- 
satisfied in sin,” i.e., eyes, in which is reflected the restless desire after ever 
fresh sin; in ἁμαρτία the reference is chiefly to sensual sins. — δελεάζοντες, 
ver. 18, and Jas. i. 14: “to allure, to entice ; ἢ quasi pisces hamo captare (Beza). 
— ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους]. ἀστήρικτος (chap. 111. 16), not “wanton” (Luther), but 
in fide et pietatis studio nondum satis fundatus et formatus (Gerhard). — This 
idea is doubtless connected more closely with what precedes than with what 
follows (Hofmann), so that the sense is: they entice them, so as to satisfy 
their fleshly lusts on them. —«apéisav . . . ἔχοντες]. Third vice:! covetous- 
ness. The construction of the verb γεγυμνασμένην, c. gen., occurs also in the 
classics:? “a heart practised in covctousness.” Calvin is quite unwarranted 
in interpreting πλεονεξία here by cupiditates, cf. ver. 8. ---- κατάρας τέκνα, οἷ. 
Eph. ii. 8; 2 Thess. ii. 3: “men, who have incurred the curse;” an expres- 
sion of profoundest displeasure; similar to σπῖλοι καὶ μῶμοι, ver. 13. It is 
doubtful whether it is to be connected with the preceding or with the subse- 
quent passage; the first combination is preferable, because in it the language 
is more passionate. In the other case the construction, from ver. 10 med. 
onwards, might be taken thus, τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις, aS introducing the section 
down to τρυφῆν; ver. 13; σπῖλοι καὶ κῶμοι that from there to ἔχοντες, ver. 14; 
and κατάρας τέκνα that as far as παραφρονίαν, ver. 16. 

Vv. 15, 16. Comparison with Balaam; cf. Jude 11. The comparisons 
with Cain and Korah are wanting ΠΘΙΘ. --- καταλιπόντες εὐθεῖαν ὀδὸν, «.7.A., With 
ev0, 66,, cf. Acts xiii. 16; the words connect themselves closely with ἐπλανή- 
θησαν, to which then the subsequent participial clause is added by way of a 
more precise definition With ἐξακολουθ., cf. chap. i. 16, ii. 2. The con- 
junction of this verb with τῇ ὁδῷ is explained by the circumstance that ὁδός 
is here taken in a figurative sense: manner of life, conduct.— The form 
Βοσόρ, Heb. 113, arises from a peculiar pronunciation of ; Grotius is 
wrong in regarding the word as the corrupted name of the country, ΤΠ ΛΠ, 
Num. xxii. 5. Several commentators, Krebs, Vitringa, Wolf, Grotius, etc., 
assume that there is here an allusion to the counsel which Balaam gave to 
the Midianites to the corrupting of the Israelites (Num. xxxi. 16; Rev. 
ii. 14) (so, too, Dietlein); but, according to ver. 16, the reference is. rather 
to the intended cursing of the people of Israel, to which certainly Balaam, 
for the sake of reward, was inclined; hence, ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας (see ver. 13) 
ἤγάπησεν. Although such inclination on his part is not definitely mentioned 
in Num. xxii. 1-20, still, judging from the narrative of the ass, it is to be 
presupposed; cf., too, Deut. xxiii. 5. Corroboration from the rabbinical 
writings, see Wetstein. — Ver. 16. ἔλεγξιν de ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρανομίας, “but he 
received (suffered) rebuke (blame) for his trespass;” his παρανομία (not 
equivalent to vesania (Vulg.), but synonymous with ἀδικία.) consisted in this, 


1 Hofmann erroneously says that this states 
*“not a third, but a second characteristic of 
their nature, the avaritia, along with the luxu- 
ria;”’ for in the first half of this verse they are 
accused of something which is identical neither 
with luxuria nor with ayaritia, and this even 


if ὀφθαλμ. ἔχοντες be closely connected with 
the preceding passage. 

2 Philostratus, 2, 15: θαλάττης οὕπω γεγυμ- 
νασμένοι; 8, 1: Νέστορα πολέμον πολλῶν 
γεγυμυ.; 10,1: σοφίας ἤδη γεγυμνασμένον. 


CHAP. II. 17, 18: 415 


that he was willing, for the sake of the reward, if God permitted it, to curse 
Israel, and for this reason went to Balak. ἰδίας stands here in place of the 
pers. pron. αὑτοῦ. Dietlein presses ἐδίας, by translating, “ belonging to him,” 
and adds by way of explanation: “to him who must be looked upon as the 
prototype of the false prophets.” Wiesinger, on the other hand, sees the sig- 
nificance of idia¢ in this, that “he who was a prophet to others, had to suffer 
rebuke of an ass for his own παρανομ." But neither the one nor the other is 
alluded to in the context. — That which follows states in what the ἔλεγξις 
consisted. — ὑποζύγιον, properly: a beast that bears a yoke, here as in Matt. 
xxi. 5, designation of the 888. -- ἄφωνον, in contrast to human speaking. — 
ἔν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον does not state the reason of the ἐκώλυσε, but em- 
phasizes the miraculous nature of the occurrence (ἄφωνον. φωνῇ). --- ἐκώλυσε 
τὴν τοῦ προφήτου παραφρονίαν]. Schott understands Balaam’s παραφρονία to be 
his striking of the ass; Wiesinger: “his folly, in setting himself against the 
angel;” but it is more correct to understand by it the aforenamed παρανομία, 
which the angel opposed. Hofmann rightly observes: “ The signification of 
the verb does not imply that it is left undone, but simply that opposition is 
offered to what is done or is intended to be done; cf. 1 Thess. ii. 16."1 
The word παραφρονία, “ folly,” am. Aey, (the verb in 2 Cor. xi. 23), unusual in 
the classics also, instead of which παραφροσύνη or παραφρόνησις ; see Winer, 
p. 90 (E. T., 95).— τοῦ προφήτου (cf. Num. xxiv. 4) stands in emphatic 
antithesis to ὑποζύγιον ἄφωνον. 

Ver. 17. Description of the teachers of false doctrine from another point 
of view, in as far as by making a false show of freedom they seduce others 
tc immorality. First, a double comparison, of which the second only occurs 
in Jude 12. —otroi εἰσι πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι]. The point of comparison lies in the 
deceptiveness of a πηγῇ, which is without water; it awakens an expectation 
which it does not fulfil (as a contrast, cf. Prov. x. 11; Isa. lviii. 11).— anya 
here (which Hofmann wrongly disputes) means, as in John iv. 6: a spring, 
well; fontes enim proprie sie dicti non carent aqua (Gerhard). — καὶ ὀμίχλαι ὑπὸ 
λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι]. ὁμίχλη properly mist, here clouds of mist, as the plural 
already goes to prove, as well as the fact that it is not the mist, but the misty 
clouds, which must be regarded as foretelling rain. —AaiAap, according to 
Aristotle (Lib. De Mundo), equal to πνεῦμα βίαιον καὶ εἱλούμενον κάτωθεν ἄνω; 
Mark iv. 57. The point of comparison is the same here as in the previous 
figure, only that by ὑπὸ AaiA. ἀλαυν. their want of consistency (not “ their pun- 
ishment’’) is more pointedly referred to.?— oic¢ . . . τετῆρηται, so, too, in Jude 
13; it connects itself with οὗτοι, not with ὁμίχλαι, as Hofmann maintains, for 
how can this relative clause express “the dissolving of vapor into nothing”? 

Ver. 18. Cf. Jude 10. --- ὑπέρογκα γὰρ ματαιότητος φθεγγόμενοι]. The γάρ 
does not serve to explain the figurative words, ver. 17 (as formerly in this 


1 Formerly in this commentary, ἐκώλυσεν 
was explained thus: that although Balaam’s 
παραφρονία Was not exactly prevented by the 
ass, still, by the conduct of the latter, a begin- 
ning was made to prevent it. 

2 Wiesinger inappropriately remarks: 
“ However empty in itself the conduct of these 


men may be, still for the Christian community 
it has the effect of a storm which cleanses it; ” 
for their conduct is not compared to a storm, 
but to clouds of mist; nor is reference made 
to their effect on the Church, but to that of the 
storm on the clouds of mist. 


410 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


commentary), for, as Hofmann justly says, “the description of their conduct 
contained in this verse goes far beyond those figurative statements as to 
their nature.” It must be referred either, with Wiesinger, to the judgment 
expressed in ver. 17,—olc . . . τετήρ. being included, — or, as is done by 
Hofmann, to the relative clause only; the former is probably the more cor- 
rect view.! — ὑπέρογκος, “ swelling ;" in the classics used also of style. μαται- 
éryc gives the nature of the swelling, high-sounding speeches (“the proud 
words,” Luther); Luther, aptly: “since there is nothing behind them.” 
The word φθεγγόμενοι (besides in Acts iv. 18, to be found only here and in 
ver. 16) is here the more appropriate that it is used chiefly of loud speaking. 
— δελεάζουσιν]. Cf. ver. 14. —év ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκὸς ἀσελγείαιςἢ. ἐν is commonly 
taken as equivalent to διά, and ἀσελγ. as an apposition to ἐπιθ. : “through the 
lusts of the flesh, through debauchery” (De Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, 
probably Schott too); but thus there is a felt want of a καὶ, or of a second ἐν, 
and the ἐπιθυμίαι of the seducers, too, are not to be considered as the means 
of allurement. Hofmann explains: “by means of fleshly lusts, which they 
awaken in them, through acts of wantonness, the enjoyment of which they 
hold out to them;” but here relations are introduced to which the text 
makes no allusion. It is therefore better to take ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις o. as designat- 
ing the condition of the seducers, and ἀσελγείαις as the dat. instrum.: “in 
the lusts of the flesh (i.e., taken in them, governed by them) they allure by 
voluptuousness those who,” etc.; Steinfass, correctly: “it is part of their 
ἐπιθ. oapx. that they seek to allure the members of the church;” he is wrong, 
however, when he explains the ἀσελγείαις as that to which they allure them. 
Luther translates wrongly: “through lasciviousness to fleshly lust;” ἐν ἐπι- 
θυμίαις is not equal to εἰς ἐπιθυμίας. ---- τοὺς ὀλίγως ἀποφεύγοντας]. dAiywe, Gm. λεγ.» 
is hardly to be found elsewhere. It expresses both time and measure, and 
corresponds to the English, “hardly, just” (thus also Schott). Wiesinger 
and Hofmann understand it only of measure, equivalent to “little;” Hof- 
mann understands it of space: “they are a little way escaped from those 
who walk in error.” The pres. of the verb shows that they are, as it were, 
still in the act of flight from their former condition, and are not yet firmly 
established in the new; cf. ver. 14: ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους. --- τοὺς ἐν πλάνῃ ἀναστρεφο- 
μένους not an adjunct co-ordinate with what goes before; Luther: “and now 
walk in error;” but the accus. is dependent on ἀποφεύγοντας, and οἱ ἐν πλάνῃ 
ἀναστρεφόμενοι are those from whom the persons who are being seduced have 
separated themselves, those who are not Christians, especially the heathen, 
who lead a life ἐν πλάνῃ (Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner, Fronmiiller, Hofmann); 
Steinfass incorrectly understands by the expression the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι. 

Ver. 19. ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοὶς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι]. Explanation of the ὑπέρογκα uar. 
φθεγγόμενοι ; the high speeches have as their contents the praise of liberty. — 
ἐπαγγελλόμενοι ; they assure, promise, those who submit to their guidance that 
they will conduct them to true liberty. — αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς]. 
A sharp antithesis to ἐλευθ. ἐπαγγελλ.: “though they themselves are slaves of 


1 Bengel: ‘*Puteus et nubes aquam polli- lumina ecclesiae; sed hi putei, hae nubes nil 
centur; sic ΠῚ praegrandia jactant, quasi praebent; praegrandia illa sunt vanitatis.” 


CHAP. II. 20. 417 


φθορά." By φθορά moral corruption is generally understood, but elsewhere 
in the N. T. the word never has this meaning; it should rather be taken in 
the same sense as that which it has in ver. 12. In Rom. viii. 21 it denotes 
the opposite of δόξα, which Hofmann wrongly denies. Schott erroneously 
takes it to mean “the things of sense;” but these, though they be given up 
to φθορά, yet cannot be directly defined as φθορά itself.1_ The chief emphasis 
lies on δοῦλο. The general statement, ᾧ yap τις ἥττηται, τούτῳ καὶ δεδούλωται, 
serves to show that the term is applied to them not without justification. 
The verb ἡττᾶσθαι (with the exception of in this passage and in ver. 20, to be 
found only in 2 Cor. xii. 18) is in classical Greek often used as a passive 
and construed with ὑπό, and, in harmony with its meaning, frequently with 
the genitive, and sometimes also with the dative. The latter is the case 
here: “to whom any one succumbs.” The dat. with dedoiAwra expresses the 
᾿ relation of belonging to: to him he is made the slave, i.e., whose slave he is. 
Schott arbitrarily asserts that ἥττηται with the dat. brings out that the being 
overcome “is voluntary and desired on principle.” 

Ver. 20 gives an explanation (γάρ, equal to: namely) of the statement 
contained in ver. 19, that those there described are the δυῦλοι τῆς φθορᾶς, after 
that the general remark: &.. . dedovAwra has been applied tothem. Almost 
all interpreters hold that in this verse the same persons are the subjects as 
in ver. 19; so that the ἀποφυγόντες refers to those with the description of 
whom the author has throughout the whole chapter been engaged. Bengel, 
Fronmiiller, Hofmann, are of a different opinion. They assume that dzodv- 
yovrec refers to those who are led astray, and that the latter accordingly, 
and not the seducers, are to be regarded as the subject of the clause. 
In favor of this view may be urged the term ἀποφυγόντες, which seems 
to refer back to the ἀποφευγόντας in ver. 18. But, on the one hand, it is 
certainly unnatural to consider those to be the subjects here who are the 
objects in ver. 18, especially as ver. 19 has the same subject as ver. 18; 
and, on the other, it would be more than surprising if the apostle did not, 
from here onwards, continue the description of those of whom the whole 
chapter speaks, but should, all of a sudden, treat of entirely different 
persons, —and this without in any way hinting at the transition from 
the one to the other; in addition to this, there is the circumstance that 
ἡττῶνται corresponds much too directly with ἥττηται. --- εἰ yap]. The reality, 
as frequently, expressed hypothetically. Without any reason, Grotius 
would read “oi yao” instead of εἰ γάρ. ---- ἀποφυγόντες]. The participle is 
not to be resolved by “although,” but by “after that.” — ta μιάσματα τοὺ 
κόσμου). τὰ μιάσματα, a form occurring only here; ver. 10: μιασμός, --- τοὺ 
κόσμου, here in an ethical sense, as composed of those who walk (ver. 18) 
ἐν πλάνῃ, or, With Wiesinger: “as the dominion over which sin rules,” “ the 
defilements which belong to the world.” Without sufficient reason, Hofmann 
takes τὰ μιάσματα τ. x. in a personal sense, and thinks that it means, in the 
first instance, “those individuals who are the abomination and blemishes of 


1 Hofmann, appealing to 1 Cor. xv. 50, un- itself proves that the abstract idea is put in 
derstands φθορὰ here also as meaning ‘‘the place of the concrete, which is not the case 
corruptible;’’ but in that passage the context here. 


418 . THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


the non-Christian world, and that τούτοις dé refers to the Christians whom 
Peter designates as the σπίλοι κ. μῶμοι of the church.” But nothing in the 
context hints at this, and it is arbitrary to understand by τούτοις other μιώσ- 
ματα than those designated by that word itself. — ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοὺ κυρίου... 
Χριστοὺ, i.e., by their having come to the knowledge of Christ. — τούτοις (i.e., 
μιάσμασι) δὲ πάλιν ἐμπλακέντες ἡττῶνται]. ἐμπλακέντες is valde emphaticum ; éundé- 
κεσθαι enim dicuntur, qui tricis et laqueis implicantur (Gerhard). The particle 
δέ places in antithesis either the two participles, ἀποφυγόντες and πάλιν ἐμπλα- 
xévrec, or the first participle and the finite verb ἡττῶνται ; the former construc- 
tion is to be preferred as the more correct. — γέγονεν αὐτοῖς... τῶν πρώτων]. 
The same words are to be found in Matt. xii. 45; Luke xi. 26;! τὰ πρῶτα: 
the former condition, in which they were before their conversion; τὰ ἐσγατα: 
their subsequent condition, into which they have come after their falling away, 
i.e., the condition of complete slavery to the φθορά, from which there is uo 
hope of redemption: with the thought, cf. Heb. x. 26, 27. 

Ver. 21. κρεῖττον γὰρ ἣν αὐτοῖς]. The same use of the imperf. where we 
should employ the conjunct., Mark xiv. 21: καλὸν ἣν aizw; cf. on the constr. 
Winer, p. 265 (E. T., 282). — μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης]. ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς 
δικαίοσ. is not “the way to virtue,” or “the way of salvation which leads to 
the moral condition of righteousness” (Schott), but a designation of Chris- 
tianity in so far as a godly righteous life belongs to it; cf. ver. 2.2—7 
éxtyvovow]. The dat. instead of the accus., dependent on aitac; by an 
attraction not uncommon in Greek --- ἐπιστρέψαι is to be taken here in the 
sense of “to turn back to the former things,” cf. ver. 22, as in Mark xiii. 16; 
Luke xvii. 31, where it is connected with εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω; in Luke viii. 55, never- 
theless, it is used in the same sense without adjunct; see critical remarks. — 
ἐκ THe... ἐντολῆς]. With παραδοθείσης αὑτοῖς, cf. Jude 3. — 7 ἁγία ἐντολή is 
the law of the Christian life, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 14; here mentioned because the 
passage treats of the moral corruption of the false teachers. 

Ver. 22. The two proverbial expressions which form the close bring out 
how contemptible is the conduct just described. — συμβέβηκε αὐτοῖς, “it has 
happened to them,” “has befallen them.” — τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας]. The same 
construction, Matt. xxi. 21: τὸ τῆς συκῆς; παροιμία denotes a figurative speech 
or mode of expression generally. ἀληθους is added in order to bring out that 
the proverb has here too proved true; the author employs the singular 
παροιμίας, because the two proverbs following have one and the same mean- 
ing. —xiwr ἐπιστρέψας... ἐξέραμα]. The verse of the O. T., Prov. xxvi. 11, 
Ge: TuUNS: ὥσπερ κύων ὅταν ἐπελθῇ ἐπὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἔμετον μισητὸς γενῆται, οὕτως 
ἄφρων τῇ ἑαυτοῦ κακίᾳ ἀναστρέψας ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἁμαρτίαν; in spite of the similarity, 
it is yet doubtful whether the writer had this passage in his eye; probably 
he took this rapowa, like that which follows, — which can be traced to no 
written source, — from popular tradition. — ἐπιστρέψας is not to be taken as 


1 There is a similar passage in Past. Herm. 2 In Steinfass’s observation: ‘‘ By the δικ- 
iii. 9: ‘*quidam tamen ex iis maculaverunt se, αιοσύνης οὗ the ὁδὸν δικαιοσύνης, righteousness 
et projecti sunt de genere justorum et iterum is understood as being not the end, but the 
redierunt ad statum pristinum, atque etiam wayfarer,” the first is right, but the second 
deteriores quam prius eyaserunt.” wrong. 


CHAP. II. 22. 419 


a verb fin., but the predicate is, after the manner of proverbial expression, 
joined without the copula to the noun (Winer, p. 331 [E. T., 353 f.]): “a 
dog that has returned to its éépaua” (Gm, Aey.: “what has been vomited”). — 
ic λουσαμένη . . . βορβόρου]. ἐπιστρέψασα may be supplied from what precedes, 
but thus this second παροιμία would lose its independence; breviloquence is 
natural to proverbs (Winer, p. 547 [E. T., 588]); εἰς, according to the sense, 
points sufficiently to a verb of motion to be supplied: “a sow that has bathed 
itself, to the κύλισμα βορβόρου. 1— κῦλισμα (am. Aey.), equal to κυλίστρα : the place 
for wallowing. The genit. βορβόρου (az. Aey.) shows the nature of the κύλισμα 
where the swine wallow; the other reading, κυλισμόν, indicates the act of 
wallowing. —Similar passages are to be found in the Rabbis. Cf. Pott 
in loc. 


1 Steinfass interprets erroneously : ‘‘ A sow that was bathed, in order the better to wallow in 
the mire.” 


420 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 2. Instead of the Rec. ἡμῶν, the reading, according to almost all 
authorities (Lachm., Tisch.), should be, ὑμῶν. -- Ver. 3. In place of ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου 
in K, L, P, ete., Syr., utr., Oec., etc. (Griesb., Scholz), A, B, ΟΕ, 8, al., Sahid., 
Chrys., etc., read: ἐσχάτων (Lachm., Tisch.); the Rec. is probably a correction 
after Heb. i. 1; ef. also Jude 18. —év ἐμπαιγμονῇ has been rightly adopted into 
the text by Griesb., Scholz, etc.; it is attested by A, B, C, P, &, 27, etc., Syr., 
utr., Arr., etc. Its omission (in K, L, etc., Rec.) is easily explained by its hav- 
ing seemed superfluous on account of the subsequent ἐμπαῖκται, --- Tisch. has _ 
placed αὐτῶν before ἐπιθυμίας, following A, δὲ, several min., Oec.; however, B, C, 
K, L, P, al., m., Theoph., ete., are in favor of placing it after é76. (Griesb., 
Scholz, Lachm.).— Ver. 7. Instead of the Rec. τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, after A, Vulg., 
Copt., etc. (Lachm., Buttm., Tisch. 8), C, L, δὲ, al., perm., Syr., utr., etc., read: 
τῷ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. 7). According to Buttm., the reading in 
B is uncertain. On internal grounds it is difficult to decide which is the origi- 
nal reading; Hofmann, however, declares the reading αὐτῷ to be absurd. — Ver. 
9. κύριος, instead of the Rec. ὁ κύριος: the most important authorities omit the 
article. — εἰς ἡμᾶς]. Ree., K, L, etc.; instead of ἡμᾶς, A, B, C, &, etc., have ὑμᾶς; 
and instead of εἰς, A, δὲ, etc., read διά, Tisch. 7 has adopted εἰς ὑμᾶς, and 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8, δι ὑμᾶς; the reading εἰς ὑμᾶς is best attested. Reiche con- 
siders that of the Rec. to be the original reading: ob testium majorem numerum 
(9) et quia hic modestius et convenientius erat, se ipsum includere ; the most of 
the modern commentators prefer εἰς ὑμᾶς; Hofm., however, holds the Rec. to 
be the original reading. Semler looks upon all the three readings as mere inter- 
pretamenta. — Ver. 10. In B, C, Cyr., the article is wanting before ἡμέρα: 
Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it. — After κλέπτης the Rec. has ἐν νυκτὶ (after 
C, K, L, ete.), already justly omitted by Griesb. as a later supplement from 
1 Thess. v. 2 (so, too, Tisch.). — Before οὐρανοί the Rec., after A, B, C (Lachm., 
Tisch. 7), has the article of; in K, L, δὲ, it is wanting (Tisch. 8).—In place of 
λυθήσονται, Rec., after A, K, L (Tisch. 7), Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have adopted 
the sing. λυθήσεται, following B, C, δὲ; perhaps it is a correction according to the 
common usage. — Instead of the Rec. κατακαήσεται in A, L, etc., B, K, P, etc., 
read εὑρεθήσεται; Lachm. and Tisch. have retained the Rec.; the latter observes 
(8): dubium non est, quin εὑρεθῆσεται edere jubeamur, at hoc vix ac ne vix quidem 
potest sanum esse; οὐχ sive οὐκέτι si praepositum esset, non haerendum esset. 
The greater number of commentators have left unnoticed the reading εὑρεθήσεται; 
not so Hofmann; Buttm. reads: ἃ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα εὑρεθήσεται: but ἃ instead of τά 
occurs in no codex. Cod. C reads ἀφανισθήσονται. See further in the exposi- 
tion. — Ver. 11. τούτων οὐν]. Rec., after A, K, L, δὲ, etc., Vulg., Thph., Oec. . 
(Lachm., Tisch. 8); in its place B has τούτων οὕτως, and C τουτων de οὕτως; Tisch. 
7 had accepted the version of B. — Ver. 12. Instead of τήκεται, Lachm., following 
C, Vulg., etc., reads: τακήσεται; probably a correction, because of the preceding 


CHAP. III. 1, 2: 421 
future. — Ver. 13. γῆν καινῆν]. Rec., according to B, C, K, L, P, ete. (Lachm., 
Tisch. 7); in its place Tisch. 8 reads καινὴν γῆν, according to A, δὲ; this appears 
to be a correction, after the preceding καινοὺς... οὐρανούς. --- κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα]. 
Ree., according to B, C, K, L, P (Tisch. 7); instead of κατά, A, etc., read καὶ: 
and in place of ἐπάγγελμα, A, &, etc., have: ἐπαγγέλματα; Lachm. has adopted καὶ 
τὰ ἐπαγγέλματα: and Tisch. 8: κατὰ τὰ émayyéAuara, — Ver, 15. According to A, 
B, C, K, P,&, ete., instead of the Rec. αὐτῷ δοθεῖσαν (L, ete.), the reading should 
be, as in Lachm. and Tisch.: δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ. --- Ver. 16. After πάσαις, Tisch. 8, 
following K, L, P, δὲ, reads the article ταῖς; Tisch. 7 and Lachm. omit ταῖς, after 
A, B, ©, al. —In place of the Ree. ἐν αἷς (Tisch. 8), after A, B, δὲ, Lachm. and 
Tisch. 7 read: ἐν ofc; on this see the commentary. — Lachm. has retained the 
ἀμῆν, which closes the epistle, according to A, C, K, L, P, δὰ, al.; Tisch., follow- 
ing B, has omitted it, remarking: solet omnino a testibus plerisque addi ad 
finem epistolarum; ter tantum (Rom., Gal., Jud.) non satis auctoritatis est, ut 
omittatur ἀμὴν. Pauci addunt ἀμὴν 3 Joh. 


Ver. 1. Not the commencement of a new epistle (Grotius), but of a new 
section, directed against the deniers of the advent of Christ. —rairyv ἤδη... 
ἐπιστολῆν]. ‘This epistle I write to you, as already the second.” Pott: 
αὕτη ἤδη δευτέρα ἐστὶν ἐπιστολὴ, ἣν γράφω ὑμῖν. Fronmiiller incorrectly explains 
ἤδη by: “now being near my death.” ‘The epistle first written is the so- 
called First Epistle of Peter. —év alc applies both to this and the First 
Epistle of Peter (Winer, p. 134 [E. T., 142]). The prepos. ἐν does not 
stand here in place of διά (Gerhard), but refers to the contents. — διεγείρω 
. . . διάνοιαν, for the phrase: διεγείρειν ἐν ὑπομνήσει, cf. chap. 1. 13. — ὑμῶν 
belongs to διάνοιαν. ---- εἰλικρινῆ, cf. Phil. i. 10. 

Ver. 2. Cf. Jude 17; in Jude mention is not made of the apostles, but 
only of the prophets. — μνησθῆναι]. Infin. of purpose: “in order that ye may 
remember,” equivalent to εἰς τὸ μνησθῆναι (Vorstius). — τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων 
ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν] This applies evidently to the Old Testament proph- 
ets; and with especial reference to the prophecies which relate to the 
παρουσία of Christ (cf. ver. 4 and chap. i. 19).1_ The Vulg. wrongly trans- 
lates: ut memores sitis eorum quae praedixi verborum a sanctis prophetis (or 
sanctorum prophetarum).—xal τῆς τῶν ἀποστύλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ 
σωτῆρος]. On the commonly accepted reading ἡμῶν, a double interpretation 
has been given; some, making ἡμῶν depend on ἐντολῆς, for the most part 
regard τῶν ἀποστόλων a8 in apposition to ἡμῶν, thus: “of our, the apostles’, 
command” (Luther: “the commandment of us, who are the apostles of the 
Lord;” thus, too, Calvin, Hornejus, Wolf, Pott, Dietlein, etc.); whilst 
Bengel more correctly takes ἡμῶν as in apposition to ἀποστόλων; as in Acts 
x. 41: μάρτυσι... ἡμῖν; for otherwise ἡμῶν must have stood before ἀποστό- 
λων; ef. also 1 Cor. i. 18. Others, again, hold that ἡμῶν is dependent on 
ἀποστόλων ; thus De Wette: “the commandment of our apostles of the Lord, 
1.6.5 of the apostles who have preached to us, and are sent from the Lord.” 


1 Of course τὰ προειρημένα ῥήματα does not not require to insist upon it; the more so that 
mean ‘‘ what has been said before,” but ‘the the contrary is not asserted in the commen- 
words aforetime spoken,” and Hofmann did taries against which his argument is directed. 


422 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


But against this interpretation is the circumstance, that, whilst he elsewhere 
in the epistle designates himself as an apostle, the author of the epistle 
would thus make a distinction between himself and the apostles.1_ On the 
true reading, ὑμῶν, the gen. τοῦ κυρίου does not, as was for the most part 
formerly assumed, depend on ἀποστόλων, but on ἐντολῆς (Briickner, Wiesinger, 
Schott, Steinfass); either in the sense: “the commandment... of the 
Lord of the apostles, i.e., the commandment of the Lord, which the apostles 
have proclaimed ;” or “roi κυρίου is added by way of supplement to évrod.,” 
and the expression is to be left as it stands originally: “your command of 
the apostles, of the Lord, i.e., which the Lord has given” (Briickner; thus also 
Wiesinger, Schott) ; the latter is to be preferred. No doubt the parallel 
passage in Jude runs: ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοὺ κυρίου ἡμῶν ; but the whole epistle, 
and especially this passage of it, shows that the author of our epistle, éven 
if he had Jude’s composition before him, in no way bound himself slavishly 
to individual expressions in it. According to Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass, 
by the az, iu., Paul and his fellow-laborers are meant; this, too, is more 
probable than that the apostle included himself among them. — By ἐντολή is 
here, as little as in chap. 11, 21, to be understood the gospel, or the Christian 
religion (or, as Dietlein thinks, “the announcement, i.e., the historical 
proclamation, of those predictions of the prophets, partly fulfilled, partly 
yet unfulfilled, which was intrusted to the apostles”); but ἐντολῇ means 
here, as it always does, the commandment; according to De Wette: “the 
commandment to guard against the false teachers,” after 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. 
But it is more appropriate, and more in harmony with the connection of 
thought, to understand by it the command to lead a Christian life, in expec- 
tation of the second coming of Christ (Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner); cf. 
chap. ii. 22,1. 5 ff., iii. 12. 

Ver. 8. τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ; cf. chap. i. 30. --- γινώσκοντες refers in 
loose construction (instead of an accus.) to the subject contained in μνησθῆναι. 
- — ὅτι ἐλεύσονται, κ.τ.λ.1. Cf. Jude 18.2 — ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῃ gives sharp prominence 
to the conduct of the ἐμπαῖκται. The word is a ἀπ. Aey.; Heb. xi. 86: ἐμπαιγ- 
uoc; With the constr. ἔρχεσθαι ἐν, cf. 1 Cor. iv. 21. — κατὰ race . . . πορευόμενοι ; 
Jude 18 and 16; ἰδιας is added so as to strengthen the pronoun αὐτῶν. 

Ver. 4. The scoffing words of the ἐμπαῖκται. ---- καὶ λέγοντες " ποὺ ἐστιν 9 ἐπαγ- 
yehia τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ]. The question ποῦ ἐστιν expresses the negation; 
“quasi dicunt: nusquam est, evanuit ; denique vana est et mendax;” cf. 1 Pet. 
iv. 18. The same form of speech with ποὺ éorw: Ps. xlii. 4, lxxix. 10; Mal. 
ii. 17; Luke viii. 25. — avroi, i.e., Christi, cuyus nomen ex re ipsa satis poterat 
intelligi (Grotius). Gerhard assumes that the scoffers did not mention the 
name of Christ per ἐξουθενισμὸν ; thus also Wiesinger, Hofmann. According 
to the connection (ver. 2), the ἐπαγγελία meant is that of the O. T. (cf. chap. 


1 De Wette thinks, indeed, that here the 2 Hofmann unwarrantably assumes that by 
non-apostolic writer has involuntarily betrayed that, of which the writer would have his read- 
himself; but, as Stier justly observes, it can ers to be specially mindful, he does not mean 
indeed hardly be supposed that the writer only the contents of the sentence depending 
should have ‘so grossly failed to keepup the directly on γινώσκοντες, but still more than 
part’ which he had distinctly assumed. that. 


CHAP. III. 4. 423 


i. 19 ff.1). In what follows we have the thesis of .the scoffers in opposition 
to the ἐπαγγελία, and the basis of it. The thesis is: πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ’ 
ἀρχῆς κτίσεως; its basis is indicated by the words: ἀφ᾽ ἧς (sc. ἡμέρας) of πατέρες 
ἐκοιμήθησαν. On the assumption that the ἀφ᾽ ἧς of mar. exo, aS used by the 
scofters, means the period marking off the commencement of the διαμένει, and 
that ἀπ’ dpy. xr, serves only as a more precise definition of it (Briickner, 
Schott), then by of πατέρες must be understood “the ancestors, the first 
generations of the human race.” But on this view, ἀφ᾽ ἧς, «.7.2., is an 
entirely superfluous determination (Wiesinger), nor would there thus be any 
indication of the ground on which the scoffers based their thesis; if, how- 
ever, this be contained in dq’ ἧς, «.7.A., the reference in οἱ πατέρες can be only 
either to the fathers of the Jewish people, to whom the ἐπαγγελία was given, 
ef. Heb. i. 1 (Wiesinger), or those of the generation to which the scoffers 
belong (De Wette, Thiersch, Fronmiiller, Hofmann). Now, since the fall- 
ing asleep of the fathers of Israel, before its fulfilment, could not well be 
brought as a proof that the promise was of none effect, inasmuch as it 
referred to a time beyond that in which they lived (cf. 1 Pet. i. 10 ff.), 
preference must be given to the second view. Weisinger, indeed, says that 
the time of the composition of the epistle does not agree with this; but as 
the tarrying of the παρουσία had already been the occasion of wonder in the 
church, and Christianity, when this letter was composed, had now been in 
existence for at least thirty-five years, it is quite possible that even at that 
tame those who held Libertine views could have supported their denial of the 
parousia by the fact that the expectation cherished by the early Christians 
had remained unrealized, thus calling forth the prophecy here made. At 
any rate, it is a point not to be overlooked, that the words here used are 
represented as to be spoken at a time then still in the future. Ver. 8, which 
otherwise would stand totally unconnected with ver. 4, also favors this view.? 
The connection of the two members of the verse is certainly a loose one, 
since on none of the interpretations does ἀφ᾽ ἧς, κ.τ.}., Stand in close connec- 
tion with διαμένει. The thought which has been somewhat inadequately 
expressed is: Since the fathers fell asleep, nothing has changed, — the 
promise has not been fulfilled, —a proof that every thing remains as it has 
been since the creation. With ἐκοιμήθησαν, οἷ. 1 Cor. vii. 39, xv. 6, and other 
passages. — οὕτως does not require any supplement properly so called: “ the 
scoffers point, as it were, with the finger to the (sacred) status quo of the 
world” (Steinfass). — διαμένει does not mean “has remained,” nor is it “ will 


1 This Hofmann disputes, saying: “ By the 2 Dietlein’s interpretation is altogether 


promise is not to be understood the Old Testa- 
ment promise, nor by the future the future of 
Christ, since those who speak thus are mem- 
bers of the Christian church; but with respect 
to the Old Testament prophecy, they speak of 
Jehovah’s coming, and, with respect to Christ’s 
prophecy, of His own coming. ἡ ἐπαγγελία 
τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου might comprehend the 
one as well as the other;” the context, how- 
ever, is in favor of the interpretation which 
Hofmann disputes. 


wrong. According to it, oi πατέρες means: 
“‘One generation after another always stand- 
ing in the relation of fathers to the race suc- 
ceeding it.’’ Peculiar, but certainly quite 
unjustifiable, is the opinion of Steinfass, that 
the scoffers, with reference to the promise con 
tained in the Book of Enoch, understood ot 
πατέρες to mean “the prophetical, or more 
definitely, the eschatological patriarchs, begin- 
ning with Enoch, and extending down to 
Daniel.” 


424 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


remain,” but the present expresses the continuous, uniform duration; δια 
strengthens the idea pévew.—an’ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως : “since creation took its 
beginning.” 

Ver. 5 Refutation of the assertion: πάντα οὕτω διαμένει, by the adducing 
the fact of the flood.! λανθάνει γὰρ... θέλοντας ; yap 18 not equivalent to dé, 
but designates the thought which follows as the reason for their scoffing: 
“Thus they speak because;” cf. Winer, p. 423 [E. T., 453]. — τοῦτο belongs 
either to λανθάνει or to θέλοντας; in the first case it refers to what follows: 
ὅτι, «.7.4. } in which case θέλοντας will mean: “ willingly, on purpose ” (Bruck- 
ner, Wiesinger, Fronmiiller, Hofmann; cf. Winer, p. 436 [E. T., 467]; 
Buttmann, p. 322. Luther: “but they wilfully will not know”); in the 
second case τοῦτο refers to the contents of the preceding statement, and θέλειν 
means “to assert;” “for, whilst they assert this, it 15. hidden from them that” 
(Dietlein, Schott). The position both of τοῦτο separated from ὅτε by θέλοντας, 
and of θέλοντας separated by τοῦτο from λανθάνει, favors the second construc- 
tion; that θέλειν can be used in the sense of “to assert,” is clear from 
Herodian, v. 3, 11: εἰκόνα τε ἡλίου ἀνέργαστον εἶναι θελουσι; the word marks the 
assertion as one based on self-willed arbitrariness, and as without any cer- 
tain foundation. — ὅτι οὐρανοὶ ἧσαν ἔκπαλαι; of οὐρανοί, the plural according to 
the common usage. — ἔκπαλαι; ef. chap. ii. 8, not, “of old, formerly,” but, 
“from of old,” i.e., jam inde a primo rerum omnium initio (Gerhard). — ἧσαν 
belongs in the first instance to οὐρανοί ; yet the subsequent y7 is to be taken 
as applying to it also. —xai γὴ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι’ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα]. συνεστῶσα 
expresses the idea of originating out of a combination ; συνίστημι is often 
employed thus by the Greeks in the intransitive tenses, though the reference 
contained in σὺν sometimes disappears almost entirely. The prepositions ἐξ 
and διά must not be regarded as synonymous; ἐξ refers to the substance, διὰ 
to the means. A twofold significance is thus attributed to the water in the 
formation of the earth, which is also in harmony with the Mosaic account 
of the creation, where the original substance is distinctly spoken of as ὕδωρ, 
and in the formation of the earth, water is mentioned as the instrumental 
element (Briickner). There is, accordingly, no foundation for the assertion 
of De Wette, that the author conceived the origin of the world, according 
to Indo-Egyptian cosmogony, as a species of chemical product of water. 
Many interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiuller, Hofmann, as 
also Winer, p. 390 [E. T., 419], explain ἐξ ὕδατος by saying that the earth 
arose out of the water “‘in which it lay buried.” But this interpretation is 
refuted by the meaning of the verbal idea συνεστῶσα, which belongs to ἐξ 
ὕδατος ; thus, too, an element would be introduced which would be of only 
secondary importance.? Although συνεστῶσα belongs grammatically only to 


1 Schott disputes this, and maintains that 
the scoffers appealed to the fact of the flood in 
support of their opinion, ‘‘in as far as it did 
not form a definite close of the earthly devel 
opment of the world, by an annihilation of the 
world,” and that now what the writer wished 
to bring forward against it was why that judg 
ment of destruction was executed simply by 


means of a flood, and consequently was not an 
absolute annihilation, but only a change of 
form; but how much here must be read be- 
tween the lines, and to which no allusion is 
made. : 

2 The interpretation οἵ Hornejus shows to 
what eccentricities commentators sometimes 
have recourse: “ dicitur autem terra consistere 


CHAP. III. 6, 7. 425 


γῆ, yet in thought it has been applied to οὐρανοὶ also; thus Briickner, Wies- 
inger, Schott, and in this commentary. This reference may be justified thus 
far, that οὐρανοὶ is understood of the second day’s work of creation, the visi- 
ble heavens; but it is necessary only if κόσμος (ver. 6) is to be taken as 
meaning the heavens and the earth. De Wette arbitrarily refers the prepo- 
sition ἐξ only to the earth, and dia to the heavens; the latter in the sense of, 
“through the water, between the water.” τῷ τοὺ Θεοῦ λόγῳ draws emphatic 
attention to the fact that the active cause of the creation of the world was 
the Word of God; to this τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ, the τῷ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ, ver. 7, corre- 
sponds. 

Ver. 6. dv ὦν, «.7.4.]. The question is, To what has ὧν retrospect? The 
answer depends on the meaning attached to 6 τότε κόσμος. To appearance 
this phrase must be regarded as identical with οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ, vv. 5 and 7 
(vv. 10, 13); and in support of this view, appeal may be made also to the 
tore as distinguished from νῦν, ver. 7. On this interpretation, accepted by 
most expositors (as also in this commentary), & ὧν can refer only either to 
ἐξ ὕδατος and τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ (Gerhard, Briickner, Besser, Wiesinger, in this 
commentary also), or to ὕδατος alone (Calvin, Pott, etc.),— the plural being 
explained from the circumstance that the water was formerly spoken of both 
as substance and as medium. The objection to this explanation, however, 
is that in the account of the flood there is nothing to show that it caused the 
destruction both of the heaven and of the earth, and that the earth only, but 
not the heaven, was submerged; Hofmann accordingly understands by ὁ τότε 
κοσμος, “the world of living creatures,” as Oecumenius already had done: 
τὸ ἀπωλετο μὴ πρὸς πάντα τὸν κόσμον ἀκουστέον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς μόνα τὰ Ga. On this View 
(where νῦν only, ver. 6, seems to cause difficulty) ὧν refers to οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ 
(Oecumenius, Beza, Wolf, Hornejus, Fronmiiller, Steinfass, Hofmann).? 

Ver. 7. οἱ δὲ οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ]. The viv, which applies also to 7 γῆ, cannot, 
if by ὁ rore κόσμος is to be understood the world of living beings, be taken as 
an antithesis to τότε, but it refers simply to the present continuance of 
heaven and earth. — τῷ αὐτῷ [αὐτοῦ] λόγῳ points back τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ, ver. 5; 
if the reading αὐτοῦ be adopted, this adjunct gives expression to the thought 
that, like as the originating of the heavens and the earth was dependent on 
the Word of God, so also is their preservation to annihilation by fire. If, 
however, αὐτῷ be the true reading, the idea seems to be implied that the 
reservation of the heavens and the earth unto judgment is based already on 
the words of creation.? Though this idea be surprising, it can certainly not, 


ἐξ ὕδατος, 1.€., ἐκτὸς ὕδατος Β6 πρὸς ὕδατα, extra 
aquam s. ad aquas: δὶ ὕδατος, i.e., μετὰ 8. ἐν 
μέσῳ ὕδατος cum aqua s. in media aqua.’?— 
The opinion of Steinfass, too, that “ συνεστῶσα 
is to be limited to the creation and existence of 
human beings, animals, and vegetables,” finds 
no justification in the words of the epistle. 

1 With this reference Burnet (Archaeol. 
Philos., p. 467) agrees, yet he incorrectly ex- 
plains & ὧν by ‘‘ eam ob causam,” ΟΥ̓́Κ propter 
illam (aquam);” for he strangely assumes that 


whilst the former world was ‘ex aqua et per 
aquam constituta,” this constitutio perished by 
the flood, so that therefore the κόσμος that now 
is, is no longer ‘ex aqua et per aquam,”’ but 
*‘aliter constitutus.”’ 

2 Beda likewise applies ὧν to heaven and 
earth, but interprets (evidently erroneously) 
δια thus, that these are not the causa, but the 
objectum perditionis; i.e., δί ὧν as equivalent 
to in quibus partibus aere et terra. 

8 Dietlein: ‘* The sense is this, that the same 


426 “THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


with Hofmann, be said to be paradoxical. It is, however, also possible that 
αὐτῷ is only meant to show that the word by which this keeping of the 
heavens and the earth takes place, is the Word of God equally with that by 
which they were created. — τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσί ; “are stored up,” like a treas- 
ure, which is kept against a particular time, cf. Rom. ii. 5. Dietlein is of 
opinion that in the word the idea of use must be kept hold of; he defines it 
thus: “that heaven and earth are to serve as the material for punishment, in 
such a manner, however, that they at the same time perish themselves ;” but 
this is justified neither by the reference (Rom. ii. 5), nor by the context. — 
πυοὶ τηρούμενοι, K.7.A.]. “ In that they are reserved for the fire against the day,” 
etc.; πυρί is more appropriately joined with τηρούμενοι (Brickner, Fron- 
miiller) than with τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσί (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann); this 
last term does not require the adjunct, since in itself it corresponds to the 
ἦσαν... συνεστῶσα, and it is only in the second member of the sentence that 
mention can be made of the future destruction by fire; otherwise, too, 
τηρούμενοι Would be somewhat superfluous. The thought alluded to in πυρὶ 
τηρούμενοι is further developed in ver. 10. Nowhere in the O. T. or N. T. is 
this idea so definitely expressed as here; yet from this it does not follow 
that it is to be traced to Greek, more particularly to the Stoic philosophy, or 
to Oriental mythology. The O. T. makes frequent reference to a future 
change in the present condition of the world (“ Heaven and earth shall pass 
away,” Ps. ii. 26, 27), in connection with the appearance of God to judgment; 
cf. Isa. xxxiv. 4, li. 6; especially Isa. lxvi., where, in ver. 22, a new heaven 
and a new earth is expressly spoken of; thus, too, Job xiv. 12. Equally is 
it more than once set forth that God will come to judgment in the destroy- 
ing fire, Isa. lxvi. 15, Dan. vii. 9, 10, etc.; how easily, then, from passages 
such as these could the conception which finds expression here arise,1 the 
more especially that it was promised that the world would never again be 
destroyed by a flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire 
appeared to be a type of the future judgment of the world. — Conceptions 
as to the world’s destruction similar to those in the O. T. are to be found in 
the N. T., Matt. v. 18 (24, 29), Heb. xii. 27; of fire accompanying the judg- 
ment, 1 Cor. 111. 13,2 Thess. i. 8; of the new heaven and the new earth, 
Rev. xxi. 1.— εἰς ἡμέραν... ἀνθρώπων]!. The final end against which 
heaven and earth remain reserved for fire; ἀπώλεια : the opposite of σωτηρία, 
ef. Phil. i. 28 (chap. ii. 3).— Dietlein erroneously understands τῶν ἀσεβῶν 
ἀνθρώπων as a designation of the whole of mankind, in that, with the excep- 
tion of the converted, they are ungodly. To any such exception there is here 
no reference: the phrase has reference rather to the ungodly in contrast to 
the godly. 

Ver. 8 refers to the reason given in ἀφ᾽ ἧς, ver. 4, on which the scoffers 
based their assertion; it points out that the delay, also, of the parousia is no 
proof that it will not take place. — ὃν δὲ τοῦτο ; “ this one thing,” as a specially 


λόγος which created the world assigned also opposition that the passages Isa. Ixvi. 15 ff., to- 

to the post-Noachic world its time and its gether with Mal iii. 1-3, iv. 1, are ‘the com- 

judgment.” plete statements of that event,” surely no 
1 When Schott denies this, and asserts in judicious expositor will agree with him. 


CHAP. III. 9. 427 
important point. — μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς ; “let it not be hid from you;” said 
with reference to ver. 5. — ὅτι μία ἡμέρα, κ.τ.1. ; a thought that echoes Ps. xe. 
4. The words lay stress on the difference between the divine and the human 
reckoning of time. It does not designate God as being absolutely without 
limitations of time (cui nihil est praeteritum, nihil futurum, sed omnia prae- 
sentia ; Aretius), for it is not the nature of God that is here in question, 
but God’s reckoning of time which He created along with the world, and the 
words only bring out that it is different from that of man. For this pur- 
pose the words of the Psalms were not sufficient : χίλια ἔτη ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς σου ὡς 
ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ ἐχθές ; and, therefore, on the basis of them, the author constructs a 
verse consisting of two members. — παρὰ κυρίου ; * with God,” i.e., in God's 
way of looking at things. Since, then, time has a different value in God’s 
eyes from that which it has in the eyes of men, the tarrying hitherto of the 
judgment, although it had been predicted as at hand, is no proof that 
the judgment will not actually come.? 

Ver. 9. Explanation of the seeming delay in the fulfilment of the prom- 
ise. — οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας]. The genitive does not depend on 
κύριος (Steinfass), but on the verb, which here is not intransitive, as if περί 
(Hornejus), or évexa (Pott), or some such word were to be supplied, but 
transitive; although elsewhere it governs the accusative (Isa. xlvi. 13, LXX.: 
τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ οὐ Bpadvva), it can, in the idea of it, be likewise con- 
strued with the genitive. — βραδύνει means not simply, “differre, to put off,” 
for the author admits a delay, but it contains in it the idea of tardiness 
(Gen. xliii. 10), which even holds out the prospect of a non-fulfilment; 
Gerhard: discrimen est inter tardare et differre; is demum tardat, qui ultra 
debitum tempus, quod agendum est, differt. Cf. with this passage, Hab. ii. 3 
(Heb. x. 37) and Ecclus. xxxii. 22 (in Luther’s translation, xxxv. 22), LXX.: 
καὶ ὁ κύριος οὐ μὴ Bpadivy, οὐδὲ μὴ μακροθυμήσει. ---- κύριος here, as in ver. 8, is God, 
not Christ, as Schott vainly tries to ῬΓΌΥΘ. --- ὡς τινές βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται; “as 
some consider it tardiness ;” that is, that, contrary to expectation, the promise 
has not yet been fulfilled; Grotius: “et propterea ipsam quoque rem promissam 
in dubium trahunt.” τίνες denotes not the scoffers, but members of the 
church weak in the faith. —dAAa μυκροθυμεὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς]. μακροθυμεῖν c. ἐπί: 
Matt. xviii. 26,29; Luke xviii. 7, etc.; ὁ. πρός: 1 Thess. v. 14; ὁ. εἰς only 
here: “with reference to you.” —eic ὑμᾶς ; not: “towards mankind called of 
free grace” (Dietlein), nor towards the heathen (Schott), but in ὑμᾶς the 
readers are addressed to whom the epistle is written, the more general ref- 


_ 14 Hofmann is consequently equally incor- 
rect when he says that the passage in the 
Psalm asserts that ‘‘ for God time is no time,” 
but here that ‘‘ for Him it is neither short nor 
long.” 

2 The following thoughts are not expressed 
here, although they may be inferred from 
what is said: ‘In one single day of judgment 
God can punish the sin of centuries, and can 
adjust that great inequality which, by so long 
a duration, has been introduced into eternity ” 
(Dietlein); and ‘tin one day a mighty step 


onwards may be taken, such as in a thousand 
years could hardly have been expected; and 
then again, if retarded by the will of God, the 
mareh of development will, for a thousand 
years, hardly move faster than otherwise it 
would have done in a single day” (Thiersch, 
p- 107). 

8 To combine τῆς ἐπαγγελίας with the sub- 
sequent ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, ΒΟ as to 
make the genitive dependent on βραδύτητα 
(Hofmann), produces a yery clumsy and arti- 
ficial construction. 


428 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


erence to the others being understood as a matter of course. The reason of 
the non-fulfilment hitherto lies in the long-suffering love of God; the 
nearer definition lies in the words which follow. — μὴ βουλόμενος]. The par- 
ticiple in an explanatory sense: “in that he is not willing.” } — τινὰς ἀπολέσθαι; 
τινάς, namely, such as still lead a sensual life. — ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆ- 
cai; χωρεῖν here similarly as in Matt. xv. 177 “but come to repentance,” or, 
perhaps more correctly, “enter into repentance;” not as Dietlein thinks : 
“take the decisive step to repentance;” Calvin would, quite incorrectly, 
take χωρεῖν either as equivalent to recipere, so that κύριος would be the sub- 
ject, or as an intrans. verb equal to colligi, aggregari. — With the thought, 
ef. 1 Tim. ii. 4; Ezek. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11.8 

Ver. 10. ἥξει δὲ (ἡ) ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης]. ἥξει dé stands first by way of 
emphasis, in contrast to what precedes: “but come will the day of the Lord.” 
These words express the certainty of the coming of the day of judgment, 
and ὡς κλέπτης its unexpected suddenness; cf. 1 Thess. v. 2 (Matt. xxiv. 43): 
τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμέρας, ver. 12, shows that κυρίου is here also equivalent to Θεοῦ 
(not to Χριστοῦ; Schott). — ἐν 7 (οἷ) οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται]. ‘This rela- 
tive clause states “the event of that day, which makes it essentially what 
it is” (Schott). ῥοιζηδὸν, ar. Aey., equivalent to μετὰ ῥοίζου, is best taken in 
the sense peculiar to the word: “with rushing swiftness” (Wiesinger, Schott, 
Hofmann; Pape, s.v.); Oecumenius understands it of the crackling of the 
destroying fire; De Wette, on the other hand, of the crash of the falling 
together. With παρελεύσονται, cf. Matt. xxiv. 35, v. 18; Luke xvi. 17; Rev. 
xxi. 1. As to how the heavens shall pass away, see ver. 12. --- στοιχεῖα δὲ 
-καυσούμενα λυθῆσονται). στοιχεία cannot refer to the so-called four elements, 
“inasmuch as the dissolving of fire by means of fire is unthinkable ” (Briick- 
ner), and it is arbitrary to limit the idea to three (Hornejus), or to two 
(Estius) elements; as now the position of the words shows that the expres- 
sion has reference neither to the earth afterwards named, nor to the world 
as made up of heaven and earth (Pott: elementa totius mundi tam coeli quam 
terrae; thus, too, Briickner: “the primary substances of which the world, 
as an organism, is composed;” similarly, Wiesinger, Schott), it must be 
understood of the constituent elements of the heavens, corresponding to the 
expression: ai δυνάμεις τῶν oipavdv, Isa. xxxiv. 4; Matt. xxiv. 29 (cf. Meyer, 
in loc.). This view is justified by the circumstance that in the preceding 
οἱ οὐρανοὶ... παρελεύσονται no mention has as yet been made of the destruc- 
tion of heaven and earth by fire. At variance with this view, Hofmann 


1 According to Dietlein, βούλεσθαι expresses 
a ‘determination of the will;” θέλειν, * will- 
ing as a self-determination;” this is incorrect, 
βούλεσθαι rather means willing, arising with 
and from conscious reflection; θέλειν, on the 
other hand, is willing in general, arising also 
from direct inclination. 

2 Aeschyl. Pers., ν. 385: εἰς ναῦν; cf. Wahl, 
8.0. 

3 In order to deprive this passage of all 
force against the doctrine of predestination, 


Calvin remarks: ‘‘sed hic quaeri potest: si 
neminem Deus perire vult, cur tam multi 
pereunt ? Respondeo, non de arcano Dei con- 
silio hic fieri mentionem, quo destinati sunt 
reprobi in suum exitum: sed tantum de vo- 
luntate, quae nobis in evangelio patefit, Omni- 
bus enim promiscue manum illic porrigit Deus, 
sed eos tantum apprehendit, ut ad se ducat, 
quos ante conditum mundum elegit;”’ Beza, 
Piscator, ete., also apply this passage to the 
electi only. 


CHAP. III. 11, 12 429 


understands the expression στοιχεῖα here as a designation of the stars, arbi- 
trarily asserting that στοιχεῖα “cannot be only original component parts, but 
must also be prominent points which dominate that by which they are 
surrounded,” — appealing to Justin (Apolog., ii. c. 5, and Dial. c. Tr., ο. 23), 
who speaks of the stars as στοιχεῖα οὐράνια. To this view it may be objected, 
that the author could not picture to himself a burning of the stars, which 
appeared to him as fiery bodies; neither do any of the corresponding 
passages of Scripture allude to this. — The verb καυσοῦσθαι only here and in 
ver. 12, “to burn;” in the classics, “to suffer from heat;” the participle 
expresses the reason of the λυθήσονται: “ will be dissolved by the burning.” 
λύειν, in the sense of “to destroy, to bring to nothing,” Eph. ii. 14; 1 John 
ili. 8, — very appropriate here if στοιχεῖα be the original elements. — καὶ γῆ καὶ 
τὰ ἐν αὑτὴ ἔργα κατακαήσεται]. τὰ ἔργα are neither the wicked works of man 
(after 1 Cor. 111. 15), nor his works in general (Rosenmiiller, Steinfass, Hof- 
mann); the reference may be either to the opera naturae et artis (Bengel, 
Dietlein: “the manifold forms which appear on the earth’s surface, in con- 
trast to the earth as a whole;” thus also Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fron- 
miiller); or the expression may be synonymous with that which frequently 
occurs in the O. T.: ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς, that is to say, the creations of 
God which belong to the earth, as they are related in the history of creation, 
οἵ. Rev. x. 6. Hofmann wrongly urges against this view, that on it ra ἐν 
αὐτῇ would be sufficient; for even though this be true, it does not follow that 
the addition of the word ἔργα would prove that it is “the works of men” 
that are here meant. With reference to the reading εὑρεθήσεται, instead of 
the Rec. κατακαῆσεται (see critical remarks), Hofmann regards it as original, 
and considers the words καὶ τὰ. . . εὑρεθήσεται as an interrogative clause sub- 
joined to the preceding affirmative clause. Of course an interrogative clause 
may be subjoined to an affirmative; but when Hofmann, in support of his 
interpretation, appeals to 1 Cor. v. 2, he fails to observe that the relation 
between the statement and the question there is entirely different from that 
which is supposed to exist here. 

Vv. 11, 12. τούτων οὖν πάντων λυομένων]. τούτων πάντων refers to all the 
things before mentioned, and not only, as Hofmann thinks, to the immedi- 
ately preceding ἔργα. As regards the reading οὕτως, instead of the Ree. οὖν, 
it is indeed not supported by the preponderance of authorities; it deserves, 
however, the preference because it (equivalent to “as has before been stated”) 
is more significant than the reading oiv. The present λυομένων is explained 
by Winer, p. 321 (E. T., 342): ‘since all this is in its nature destined to 
dissolution; the lot of dissolution is, as it were, already inherent in those 
things” (thus also Dietlein, De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger) ; but it is more 
correct to find expressed in the present the certainty of the event, which is, 
no doubt, as yet future (similarly, Schott), especially as the passing away 
of all things, as it is formerly described, is in consequence not of their 
nature, but of the will of God as Judge. Hofmann denies, indeed, any 
reference to the future, remarking: the present participial clause brings out 
that this is the fate of the subject; but this fate is one which is realized 
only in the future. — ποταποὺς dei, x,7.4.]. As regards its arrangement, this 


480 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


period, as far as the end of ver. 12, is divided by many into two portions, of 
which the first closes either with ὑμᾶς (Pott, Meyer in his translation) or 
with εὐσεβείαις (Griesbach, Fronmiiller), and forms a question to which 
the second half supplies the answer. But opposed to this construction is the 
word ποταπούς, which in the N. T. is never used as indirect interrogation, 
but always in exclamation. Consequently the whole forms one clause, 
which has a hortative sense (so, too, Hofmann),! and before which may be 
supplied, for the sake of clearness, “consider therefore.” The sense is: 
“since all that passes away, consider what manner of persons you ought to 
be;” Gerhard: quam pie, quam prudenter vos oportet conservari; yet ποταπός 
(in classical writers generally ποδαπός) is not equivalent to quantus (Bret- 
schneider, De Wette-Briickner), but to qualis. —év ἁγίαις ἀναστροφαῖς καὶ εὖσε- 
Beiacc]. The plural marks the holy behavior and the piety in their different 
tendencies and forms of manifestation. These words may be taken either 
with what precedes (so most commentators) or with what follows (thus 
Steinfass); the latter is to be preferred, since the force of ποταπούς would 
only be weakened by this adjunct. — προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπεύδοντας τὴν παρουσίαν 
τῆς τοὺ Θεοὺ ἡμέρας ; not “so that,” but “since ye . . . in holy walk . . . look 
for.” — Most of the earlier interpreters arbitrarily supply εἰς to σπεύδοντας ; 
Vulg.: exspectantes et properantes in adventum; Luther: “hasten to the day.” 
Others attribute to the word the meaning, “to expect with longing,” but 
this force it never has; in the passages quoted in support of it the word 
rather means, “to prosecute any thing with zeal,” e.g., Pind., Jsthm., v. 22: 
σπεύδειν ἀρετάν; Isa. xvi. 5, LXX.: on. δικαιοσύνην; but then the object is 
always something which is effected by the action of the σπεύδοντος ; the origi- 
nal signification of hastening, hurrying, is to be kept hold of here. That 
by which this hastening is to be accomplished is to be gathered from ver. 11, 
namely, by a holy walk and piety. The context nowhere hints that it is 
to be accomplished only by prayer? (Hofmann, following Bengel). — The 
expression, τὴν παρυυσίαν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμέρας, Occurs nowhere else; with 7 τ, 
Θεοῦ qu., cf. ver. 10 and Tit. ii. 13; to παρουσίαν Steinfass arbitrarily supplies 
“ἐ τοῦ Χριστοῦ." --- δι’ ἣν οὐρανοὶ, κ.τ.1.]1. A resumption of what is said in ver. 10. 
— δ ἣν may be referred either to τὴν mapovciay (Steinfass, Hofmann) or to 
τῆς τ. Θ. ἡμέρας ; in both cases the sense remains substantially the same. It 
is to be taken neither as equivalent to per (like διά, c. gen.), nor in a tem- 
poral sense (Luther: “in which”); but it denotes here, as it always does, 
the occasioning cause, equal to “on account of ” (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott); 
ef. Winer, p. 373 [Εἰ T., 4001). Dietlein translates correctly, but arbitra- 
rily explains the phrase by “in whose honor as it were.” — πυρούμενοι, cf. 
Eph. vi. 16; Dietlein falsely: “in that they will burn;” the part. is present, 
not future. —tfxerac; De Wette: “τήκεται must not be taken strictly as 


1 Hofmann, however, does not urge the interpretation: ‘‘ They hasten the coming of 


N. T. usage of ποταπούς in favor of this con- the day, in that by repentance and holiness 
struction, but *‘ the want of purpose and cold- they accomplish the work of salvation, and 
ness of dividing the thought into question and render the μακροθυμία, ver. 9, unnecessary ;” 
answer.”” and Wiesinger further adds: ‘and positively 


2 De Wette gives substantially the correct bring it on by their prayers” (Rev. xxii. 17). 


CHAP. III. 13, 14. 431 


meaning fo be melted, as if στοιχ. were to be conceived of as a solid mass; it 
can be regarded as synonymous with λύεσθαι. The reference to Isa. xxxiv. 4, 
LXX. : καὶ τακῆσονται πᾶσαι ai δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν (cf. Micah i. 4), cannot fail 
to be recognized. Gerhard: cum tota mundi machina, coelum, terra et omnia 
quae sunt in ea sint aliquando peritura, ideo ab inordinata mundi dilectione cor 
nostrum abstrahentes coelestium bonorum desiderio et amore flagremus. 

Ver. 13. καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς καὶ γὴν καινῆν]. This verse, which does not 
depend on δι᾽ ἣν (Dietlein), but is joined in an independent manner to what 
goes before, forms the antithesis to the thought last expressed, and serves to 
strengthen the exhortation contained in vy. 11, 12. —By kamove . . . καινῆν 
the heaven and the earth of the future are distinguished as to their character 
from those of the present, and prominence is given to their glorified condi- 
tion; cf. 2 Cor. v. 17. — The same idea of a new heaven and a new earth is 

_expressed in Rey. xxi. 1. ---- κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ, cf. Isa. Ixv. 17, lxvi. 22. 
— αὐτοῦ, 1.6., Θεοῦ ; the O. T. promise, principally at least, is meant. προσδο- 
κῶμεν, Which looks back to προσδοκῶντας, ver. 12, significantly designates the 
new heaven and the new earth as the aim of the certain hope of believers. — 
ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ]. A similar thought is contained in Isa. lxy. 25; cf. 
also Rev. xxi. 3-27. Erasmus incorrectly refers ἐν oic to the subject con- 
tained in προσδοκῶμεν ; it plainly goes back to καινοὺς οὐρ. κ. γῆν καιν. δικαιοσύνην 
not equivalent to gloria et felicitas coelestis, utpote verae justitiae praemium 
(Vorstius), but the vera justitia itself, i.e., the holy conduct, completely in 
harmony with the divine will, of those who belong to the new heaven and 
the new earth.2- Hofmann widens the idea too much, when he says that 
“ δικαιοσύνη is to be understood not as applying only to the right conduct of 
men, but in the sense of integrity of nature generally.” 

Ver. 14. διὸ, ἀγαπητοὶ, ταῦτα προσδοκῶντες]. The participle does not give 
the explanation of the διό: “wherefore, because we expect this” (Wiesinger, 
Schott), but the waiting for it belongs to the exhortation (Dietlein, Briick- 
ner, Steinfass).—ozovdacate domo... ἔν εἰρήνῃ; ἄσπιλοι, cf. 1 Pet. 1. 19: 
ἀμώμητοι, besides here only in Phil. ii. 15,°“ unblamable” (Deut. xxxii. 5: 
τέκνα μώμηταν) ; reverse of the false teachers: omido καὶ μῶμοι, chap. 11. 18.— 
αὐτῷ; not equal to ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, nor is it the dat. comm. (Schott) ; and as little: 
“with reference to him” (Hofmann); but: “according to His (i.e., God's) 
judgment.” — εὑρεθῆναι refers not to the future time of the judgment, but to 
the present time of the expectation. —év eipyrvy]. This adjunct does not 


1 Although this passage does not finally 
settle the dispute, whether an entire destruc- 
tion, an annihilation, or only a transformation 
of the state of the world is to be looked for, 
whether the world is to be destroyed by fire, 
quoad substantiam suam, or quoad qualitates 
suas, still it gives more support to the second 
than the first idea, since, in spite of the strong 
expressions which the writer makes use of, it 
is not decidedly stated that the world will be 
dissolved into nothing. 

2 In the Book of Enoch, also, similar con- 


ceptions are to be found; chap. xc. 17: “and 
the former heavens, they shall pass away and 
be dissolved, and new heavens will appear; ἢ 
chap. liv., 4,5: ‘In that day will I cause mine 
elect to dwell in their midst, and I will change 
the heavens,”’ ete.; “1 will also change the 
earth,” etc.; 1. 5: “186 earth shall rejoice, the 
righteous shal] dwell therein, and the elect 
shall go and walk therein; ’’ x.17: ‘“‘ The earth 
shall be purified from all corruption, from all 
crime, from all punishment, and from all suf- 
fering.” 


482 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


belong to προσδοκῶντες, as Beza considers probable, but to εὑρεθῆναι ἄσπιλοι, 
k.7.4,; it gives the life-element, in which the Christian must move (so, too, 
Briickner) ; cf. Ephes. i. 4: ἐν ἀγάπῃ; 1 Thess. iii. 13: ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ, if he 
would be found an domAog: εἰρήνῃ is here not “concord” (Pott, Augusti), 
nor is it “ the good conscience,” but peace, in the full meaning of the word; 
the addition is explained from ver. 15. Dietlein incorrectly takes ἐν εἰρήνῃ 
as the object to be supplied to ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι, which are here used not 
as relative, but as absolute adjectives ; at the same time, too, he limits εἰρήνη, 
in the conception of it, to “ peace of the church, especially to peace in rela- 
tion to the church authorities.” Not less erroneous is it to regard, with 
Steinfass, ἐν εἰρήνῃ as the opposite “of all division between the Jewish and 
the Gentile elements.” The interpretation of De Wette: ‘“‘to your peace,” 
equivalent to εἰς εἰρήνην (Beza: vestro bono, clementem illum videlicet ac pacifi- 
cum experturi), cannot be justified on linguistic grounds. 

Vv. 15, 16. καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν]. See ver. 9: “the long- 
suffering of our Lord, which consists in this, that He still keeps back the last 
judgment.” It is open to question whether ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν means God (De 
Wette, Dietlein, Fronmiiller), or Christ (Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass) ; 
what goes before favors the former (vv. 14, 12, 10, 9, 8), the N. T. usage 
the latter; in both cases the sense is substantially the same. — σωτηρίαν 
ἡγεῖσθε; antithesis to βραδυτῆτα ἡγοῦνται, ver. 9: “the μακροθυμία of the Lord 
account for salvation,” i.e., as something which has your salvation as its aim; 
that is, by your making such use of the time of grace, that the fruit of it is 
the σωτηρία. ---- καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος, x.7.A.]. The reference 
here to Paul is evidently meant to emphasize the exhortation given; it is, 
however, more particularly occasioned by the circumstance that many per- 
sons had been guilty of wresting the apostle’s words, and against this the 
apostle wishes to warn his readers. — ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, «.7.4., designates Paul not 
only as a friend, or a fellow-Christian, but as one with whom Peter feels 
himself most intimately connected in official relationship. Hofmann, on the 
other hand, presses the plural ἡμῶν, and thinks that by it the apostle, with a 
view to his Gentile readers, would unite the Jewish-Christians with himself, 
so as to show that the apostle of the Gentiles was a beloved brother to them 
as well as to him. The adjunct, κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὑτῷ σοφίαν, acknowledges 
the wisdom which has been granted to him, of which also the utterances 
which the apostle especially has in his eye are the outcome. ---- ἔγραψεν ὑμὶν]. 
Which epistle or epistles are meant ? According to Oecumenius, Lorinus, 
Grotius, etc., as also Dietlein and Besser, it is the Epistle to the Romans, on 
account of chap. ix. 22 (ἤνεγκεν ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ) and chap. il. 4; accord- 
ing to Jachmann, the Epistle to the Corinthians (chiefly on account of 1 Ep. i. 
7-9), in consideration of the words, κατὰ. . . σοφίαν ; according to Estius, 
Bengel, Hornejus, Gerhard, etc., the Epistle to the Hebrews, on account of ix. 
26 ff., x. 25,37. These different opinions assume that καθώς applies only to 
the last thought expressed in this verse. But there is no reason for any 
such limitation, since this exhortation is joined in the closest manner possi- 
ble to that which precedes it in ver. 14. Wiesinger rightly rejects the sup- 
position that καθὼς ἔγραψε refers still farther back, namely, to the whole 


CHAP. III. 16. 433 


section relating to the parousia (De Wette, with whom Briickner agrees, and 
Schott). — Since the document to which the author alludes is, by ἔγραψεν 
ὑμῖν, indicated as one addressed to the same circle of readers as Second Peter, 
the reference here cannot be to the above-named epistles, nor yet to the 
Epistle to the Thessalonians (De Wette), but only to the Epistle to the 
Ephesians (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann: to this Steinfass adds the First 
Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to the Colossians; Fronmiiller, the last- 
named epistle and that to the Romans). In support of this may be urged 
the character of this epistle as a circular letter, and the echoes of it to be 
found in First Peter. It must also be observed, that although the precise 
thought expressed in the beginning of this verse is not to be found in that 
epistle, yet the epistle itself is certainly rich in ethical exhortations with 
reference to the Christian’s hope of salvation.1 It is plainly entirely arbi- 
trary to assume, with Pott and Morus, that the apostle here refers to an 
epistle which we do not now possess. 

Ver. 16. ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις [ταῖς] ἐπιστολαῖς ; sc. ἔγραψεν. By this adjunct the 
epistle of Paul, referred to in ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, is definitely distinguished from 
his other epistles; but what is true of the former is asserted also of the 
latter, i.e., that they contain the same exhortations, a statement, however, 
which is more precisely limited by λαλῶν ἐν αὐταὶς περὶ τούτων. The difference 
in the reading, that is, whether the article is to be put with πάσαις or not, 
is of trifling importance for the meaning, since it is unwarranted to suppose 
that πάσαις ταῖς marks the epistles of Paul as forming a formally completed 
collection (Wiesinger), — the article only showing that the epistles of Paul 
were already known as such. — λαλῶν ἐν αὐταὶς περὶ τούτων]. λαλῶν is not for 
ἐν alc λαλεὶ (Pott), but it means: “ when in them (i.e., in his epistles) he speaks 
of these things. — περὶ τούτων can only have the same reference as καθώς, ver. 
15; that is, then, not strictly to the teaching as to the parousia as such, 
but chiefly “‘to the exhortation given in ver. 14 f.” (Wiesinger), and what 
is connected with it. — The remark in what follows alludes to that which 
occasioned the mention of Paul’s epistles. —év οἷς or aig ἐστι δυσνόητά τινα]. 
It can hardly be decided which is the true reading, oé¢ or aig. Schott thinks 
that for the sense it is immaterial, since, if aig be read, the τινά must be 
limited to the passages where Paul happens to speak περὶ τούτων ; and if ἐν οἱς 
the reference carr be to those things or questions not generally, but only in 
the way in which they are discussed by Paul. Reiche holds a different 
view; in his opinion, ἐν οἱς refers to those things in themselves, ἐν αἷς to the 
epistles generally; this can, however, hardly be correct, for it is scarcely 
conceivable that the author should let fall a remark closely conjoined with 
what had gone before, which departs so entirely from the connection of 
thought. Besides, ἐν aig deserves the preference not only on account of the 


1 Schott must be considered mistaken in 
appealing to tbis, that “it is precisely the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, ii. 11-iii. 12, which 
contains the most exact development of the 
idea expressed here in ver. 9 and ver. 15, that 
the divine direction of history, with a view to 


the completion of salvation, has given the pe- 
culiar significance to the present time, to lead 
into the church the heathen world, which will 
be the subject of the future completion of sal- 
vation;” of all this absolutely nothing is here 
said. 


434 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


external authorities, but because of the following: ὡς τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς (Wie- 
singer, Brickner, Reiche, Hofmann; Schott otherwise). τινά is generally 
regarded as the subject, and dvovéyra as the predicate belonging to it; the 
position of the words, however, decides that dvov. τινά must be taken together 
as subject (Schott, Hofmann). By δυσνόητα must not be understood, with 
Schott, “the things which in themselves are opposed to the human mind,” 
but the expressions in which Paul speaks of them; Steinfass correctly: 
“ἐ τινά are words, not objects;” for to the things the verb στρεβλοῦσιν is not 
suited. What the apostle meant can only be gathered from the connection ; 
consequently, the reference here cannot be to utterances of the Apostle Paul 
with respect to the parousia itself (Schott), and therefore not to any state- 
ments of his, such as are to be found in 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 12-58. 
Still less does the connection appear to justify the assumption that ‘the 
Pauline doctrine of freedom” (Wiesinger) is meant. Since, however, Paul’s 
statements with regard to Christian freedom stand in close relation to the 
final completion of salvation, and the idea of it forms such a characteristic 
feature of Paul’s teaching, which could only too easily be distorted by mis- 
understanding, it is certainly possible, indeed it is probable, that the author 
had it chiefly in mind in using this somewhat indefinite expression.1— ἃ οἱ 
ἀμαθεῖς Kal ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν; ἀμαθῆς, ἅπ. Aey.. according to De Wette, 
equivalent to “unteachable, with the implied idea of stubbornness and of 
unbelief.” This is incorrect. ἀμαθῆς means only “ignorant;” no doubt 
the secondary idea given by De Wette may be connected with this (as in the 
passages quoted, Joseph., Antiq., i. 4, 1, aud iii. 14, 4), but here it is not to 
be presupposed, since the idea ἀστήρικτος connected with ἀμαθῆς, although 
denying strength of faith, does not deny faith itself; with dorjpura, cf. 
chap. ii. 14. Most interpreters assume that the reference here is to the 
seducers, the Libertines and deniers of the parousia formerly mentioned; 
but as a designation of them, the expressions are too weak; chap. ii. 14, too, 
is opposed to this (Schott). — στρεβλοῦν, an. Aey., strictly: “to turn with the 
otpéBAn.”’ Here it means: “to distort the words,” i.e., to give them a sense 
other than they actually have; equivalent to διαστρέφειν (cf. Chrysostom on 
2 Cor. x. 8: οὗτοι πρὸς τὰς οἰκείας διέστρεψαν τὰ ῥήματα ἐννοίας); the word is to 
be found in another figurative sense in 2 Sam. xxii. 27, LXX.— ὡς καὶ τὰς 
λοιπὰς γραφάς]. This addition is somewhat surprising, not only because all 
more precise statement of the ypagai referred to is wanting, but because by 
it στρεβλοῦν, which formerly had reference only to the δυσνόητά twa in the 
epistles of Paul, is here extended to entire writings; for, to interpret ypadai 
by “passages of Scripture” (De Wette), is arbitrary. —It is very improba- 
ble that the reference is to the O. T. Scriptures (Wiesinger, Schott, Stein- 
fass), since the author would certainly have defined them more nearly as 


1 According to Hofmann, it is passages than that which takes place in regeneration 
such as Eph. ii. 5 f., Col. ii. 12, that are meant, is to be looked for.— This doctrine, combined 
“for with these and similar statements, the with the other, that the world of sense has 
teaching of a Hymenaeus and a Philetus could nothing related to God, would produce that 
be combined, —that the resurrection was al- _ justification of immorality predicted in chap. 
ready past, and that no other resurrection ii.” 


CHAP. III. 17, 18. 435 


such! (Briickner) ; probably, then, other writings are meant, which, at the 
time of the composition of this epistle, served, like the epistles of Paul, for 
the instruction and edification of the Christian churches; it is possible, 
therefore, that these included other writings of the N. T.; but that they 
were only such, cannot be proved. That the words presuppose a collection 
of N. T. writings, properly so called, is without any reason asserted by De 
Wette (Briickner). — πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν]. ἰδίαν serves to intensify 
αὐτῶν : to their own destruction (cf. chap. ii. 1). The wresting of Scripture 
has this consequence, inasmuch as they make use of the distorted expres- 
sions, in order to harden themselves in their fleshly lust. 

Vy. 17, 18. Concluding exhortation and doxology. — ὑμεῖς οὗν]. Conclu- 
sion from what goes. before. — προγινώσκοντες ; since ye know it beforehand ; 
i.e., that such false teachers as have been’ described will come; not “that 
the advent of Christ will take place,” nor “that the consequences of the 
στρεβλοῦν will be the ἀπώλεια " (Schott). — φυλάσσεσθε, iva μῆ]. Since φυλάσ- 
σεσθε is nowhere else construed with iva μῇ, iva, «.7.., is not to be taken as an 
objective clause, but as one expressive of purpose; “ consequently, special 
emphasis lies on φυλάσσεσθε" (Schott). — τῇ τῶν ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ συναπαχθέντες]. 
The ἄθεσμοι (cf. chap. ii. 7) are the aforementioned ἐμπαῖκται and Libertines. 
— πλάνη is not “seduction” (Dietlein: “leading astray of others”), for the 
word never has this meaning (not even in Eph. iv. 14); nor would the συν 
in the verb agree with this, but, as in chap. ii. 18: “moral-religious error ; ἢ 
with συναπαχθέντες, “ carried away along with,” cf. Gal. ii. 18, and Meyer on 
Rom. xii. 16. — ἐκπέσητε τοὺ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ]. With ἐκπίπτειν, cf. Gal. v. 4, and 
Meyer in loc. — στηριγμός, ἅπ. Aey., is the firm position which any one pos- 
sesses (not “the fortress :” Luther) ; here, therefore, the firm position which 
the readers as believing Christians take up; cf. i. 12; antithesis to the dya- 
θεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι, ver. 16. Dietlein explains the word quite arbitrarily of 
the “remaining at peace in the church.” — Ver. 18. αὐξάνετε δέ]. Antithesis 
to the ἐκπέσητε ; the remaining in the firm position can take place only where 
the αὐξάνειν is not lacking. Calvin: “ad profectum etiam hortatur, quia haec 
unica est perseverandi ratio, si assidue progredimur.” Hofmann incorrectly 
connects this imperative with φυλάσσεσθε, to which it is supposed to be related 
as a further addition; this view is opposed by δέ. ---- ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει τοῦ 
κυρίου, x.7.A., does not state “the means and the origin of the growing” 
(Schott), but that in which they should grow or increase; αὐξάνειν, without 
any nearer definition, would be too bald in presence of the iva μὴ... ἐκπέ- 
σητε, x,7.2. With regard to the two ideas, χάρις and γνῶσις, Aretius says: 
“illud ad conversationem inter homines refero, quae gratiosa esse debet; hoc vero 
ad Dei cultum, qui consistit in cognitione Christi ;” this explanation is wrong ; 
χάρις can be only either the grace of God, so that the sense of the exhorta- 
tion would be, that they should seek to acquire the grace of God in ever 
richer measure (Hornejus, etc.) ; or —and this is preferable — the state of 


1 Although in other parts of the N. T. ai Scriptures are here referred to; it would be 
γραφαί always means the O. T. Scriptures, different were λοιπάς not added. 
still the addition of λοιπαί proves that other 


436 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


grace of the Christians (according to Calvin, ete.: the sum of the divine 
gifts of grace). — The γνῶσις is here specially mentioned, because the author 
regarded it as the living origin of all Christian activity. — The genitive, τοῦ 
κυρίου, x.7.4., is taken by De Wette, Briickner agreeing with him, with refer- 
ence to χάρις as the subjective, with reference to γνῶσις as the objective 
genitive; in like manner Hofmann. This twofold reference of the same 
genitive is inconceivable ;1 if it belong to both ideas, it can only be the gen. 
auctoris (Dietlein, Steinfass); but since it is more natural to explain it in 
connection with γνῶσις as gen. objec., χάρις must be taken as an independent 
conception. — Finally, the doxology, applied to Christ; Hemming: “ testi- 
monium de divinitate Christi, nam cum tribuit Christo aeternam gloriam, ipsum 
verum Deum absque omni dubio agnoscit. — The expression εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος, is 
to be found only here; Bengel takes ἡμέρα in contrast to the night: aeternitas 
est dies, sine nocte, merus et. perpetuus ; this is hardly correct; most interpret- 
ers explain the expression as equivalent to tempus aeternum, synonymous 
with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 1 Pet. i. 25, or with εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, Rom. xvi. 27; this is 
too inexact; ἡμέρα αἰῶνος is the day on which eternity, as contrasted with 
time, begins, which, however, at the same time, is eternity itself. — ἀμήν ; 
cf. Jude 25. 


1 Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Rom. xv. 4; Tit. ii. 18; 1 Pet. i. 2; but these passages do 
not prove what they are meant to prove. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF-THE APOSTLE JOHN. 


INTRODUCTION. 


SEC. 1.—CONTENTS AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE. 


1. Leapine Ipeas. — The entire development of the argument of the 
Epistle is based upon the single fundamental conviction of the antagonism 
subsisting between the “world” and “believers.” Whilst the former are 
under the power and dominion of the devil, the latter are in fellowship with 
God. Those who belong to the world are the children of the devil, the others 
are the children of God. The objective basis of believers’ life-fellowship 
with God is the mission of the Son of God, originating in His love, for 
the reconciliation of the world, or the incarnation of the Son of God (the 
Eternal Life which was with God from eternity), and His self-sacrifice unto 
death ; its subjective basis is faith in this fact of the divine love. Whoso- 
ever believes in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, belongs no more to the 
world, but has been born of divine seed, a child of God. The Christian 
must therefore, above all things, be on his guard against the false doctrine 
which, making a distinction between Jesus and the Son of God (or Christ), 
denies the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, — and, consequently, 
the fact of the revelation of divine love, —and thereby abolishes the ground 
of the life-fellowship with God. —In the communion which the believer, 
anointed with the Holy Ghost, enjoys with God in Christ, he possesses not 
only true knowledge, but also righteousness. Whilst the world is dominated 
by darkness, and those who belong to it know not whither they go, believers 
walk in the light. Enlightened by the Holy Ghost, they know God in the 
truth of His being, and are able to distinguish between truth and false- 
hood. At the same time their life is in sharpest contrast to sin. The 
latter is so opposed to their nature, that, as those who are born of God, 
they do not, nay, can not sin, but, on the contrary, in harmony with the 


pattern of Christ, do righteousness ; whereas those who belong to the world, 
437 


438 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


as children of the devil, commit sin, which is the principle of their life. 
It is true the Christian is conscious that he also still has sin; but inas- 
much as he does not deny, but, on the contrary, confesses it openly, the 
blood of Christ cleanses him; and, further, in the consciousness that Christ, 
the Righteous One, is his Paraclete with the Father, he also purifies himself, 
as Christ is pure. — The essence of the believer's righteousness is Jove to 
God, which manifests itself in obedience to His commandments, the sum of 
which is love to the brethren. — Whilst the world, following the example 
of Cain, who hated and slew his brother on account of his righteous life, 
hates the children of God, and in the spirit of hatred incurs the guilt of 
murder, the believer, imitating the pattern of Christ, feels himself bound, 
not in word only, but in deed as well, to love his brother, and to give his 
life for him if necessary. In love like this he possesses evidence of his 
divine adoption, and therein eternal life. Whilst the world continues in 
death, he has passed out of death into life; and in this new life he is free 
from fear and full of joyful confidence. He knows that his prayers are 
heard of God, and looks forward with confidence to the day of judgment, 
when he shall not be put to shame, but shall be like God, inasmuch as 
he shall see Him as He is.— The period still continues during which the 
world manifests its antagonism to the believer, who is also tempted by 
the devil; but in his faith, which is the victory over the world, he has 
vanquished these enemies, and the devil can accomplish nothing against 
him. Moreover, the world has already begun to vanish; it is the last 
time, as the appearance of Antichrist clearly proves; soon Christ shall 
appear, and with Him the perfecting of His own. 

2. Line of Argument. — At the outset we have an introduction, in which 
the apostle announces the appearing of that Eternal Life which was with 
the Father to be the theme of his apostolic message; and indicates the 
perfecting of his readers’ joy, in their communion with the Father and 
with His Son Jesus Christ, as the end aimed at in his Epistle (chap. i. 
1-4). The letter itself he begins with the thought that God is Light (i. 5), 
from which he infers that if a man asserts that he has fellowship with 
God, whilst walking in darkness, it is a lie (i. 6); and, on the other hand, 
that the fellowship of Christians with each other, and purification through 
the blood of Christ, are conditioned by a walk in the light (i. 7). In 
connection with the purification mentioned, he urges that whosoever claims 
to be without sin deceives himself, and makes God a liar, whereas in case 
of an honest confession of sin God manifests His faithfulness and justice 
by forgiving the sin and cleansing from it (i. 8-10); and with this con- 


INTRODUCTION. 439 


sciousness, in case he sin, the Christian may comfort himself, since he 
has Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for the sins of 
the whole world, as his Paraclete with the Father (ii. 1,2). In ver. 3 the 
apostle returns again to the starting-point in his argument, by showing 
that (just as fellowship with God can only be enjoyed whilst walking in 
the light) the knowledge of God can only exist in obedience to His com- 
mandments, and the being in Him in following after Christ (ii. 3-6). 
The command involved in this for the readers, says the apostle, is the 
old one which they had heard from the beginning, and which he now once 
more impresses on them because the darkness is already beginning to 
vanish. He then describes (ii. 7, 8) walking in the light as walking in 
brotherly love, whereas the man who hates his brother is in darkness (ii. 
9-11); and turns directly to his readers, whom he addresses as true Chris- 
tians who have obtained forgiveness, known the Father, and conquered 
the evil one (ii. 12-14), in order to warn them against love of the world 
and seduction by false teachers. The exhortation: “love not the world,” 
he bases on a reference to the incompatibility of love of the world with 
love of God, and on the passing away of the world and its lust (ii. 15-17). 
The necessity for this exhortation the apostle discovers in the fact that it 
is the last time, as the appearance of the antichrists shows (ii. 18). The 
line of thought thus passes on to the consideration of these antichrists. 
The apostle mentions, first of all, their relation to the Christian Church. 
“ They have,” he says, “gone out from us, but they were not of us;” and 
he then describes them, after the interjectory remark that his readers, as 
the anointed of the Holy One, know the truth, as those who deny that 
Jesus is the Christ (i.e., as deniers of the identity of Jesus and Christ), 
whereby they deny the Father as well as the Son (ii. 19-23). After an 
exhortation to his readers to abide by what they had heard from the 
beginning, whereby they should continue in the Son and in the Father, 
and enjoy everlasting life, he expresses his confidence towards them that 
the unction they had received remains in them, that therefore they 
require no human teacher; and exhorts them to abide in Christ in order 
that they may not be put to shame at His coming (ii. 24-28). 

In like manner as the apostle, in chap. i. 5, inferred from the light- 
nature of God that only the person who walks in light can have fellowship 
with Him, so now he argues from the righteousness of God, that only the 
person who practises righteousness is born of Him (ii. 29). But since 
Christians are the children of God, and as such entertain the hope of 
one day being like Him, therefore this hope is, as it were, an incentive 


440 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


to them to purify themselves even as Christ is pure, and consequently to 
avoid sin, which is disobedience to the law; and this is all the more since 
Christ has appeared for the very purpose of taking away sin, and is Him- 
self free from it. From the sinlessness of Christ it follows that whoso- 
ever is in Him does not sin; but, on the contrary, whosoever sinneth hath 
not truly known Him (iii. 1-6). The apostle, having pointed out that he 
alone is righteous according to the pattern of Christ who doeth righteous- 
ness (iii. 7), sharply contrasts those who commit sin, as children of the 
devil, with those who are born of God, and therefore cannot sin, because 
the divine seed remaineth in them (iii. 8-10); and then indicates, as the 
righteousness which the children of God practise, that brotherly love which 
he describes as the theme of the message which Christians had heard 
from the beginning (iii. 10, 11). Warningly does the apostle point to 
the world, which, following the type of Cain, hates the children of God, 
and is in death; whereas the believer shows by love that he has passed 
from death unto life (iii. 12-15). The pattern of Christian love is Christ; 
as He gave His life for us, so also must the Christian give his life for 
the brethren; nor may he content himself with a mere apparent love, but 
must love in deed and in truth (iii. 16-18). Love like this bears its own 
blessing with it; he who practises it knows that he is of the truth, and, 
whilst he overcomes thereby the accusation of his own heart, he has con- 
fidence towards God in the consciousness that God hears his prayers 
because he keeps the commandments of God (iii. 19-22). _With the fore- 
going the apostle then immediately connects the idea that God’s com- 
mandment embraces a twofold element: viz., (1) that we believe on the 
name of His Son Jesus Christ; and (2) that we love one another (iii. 
23); and then proceeds, after remarking that whosoever obeys the com- 
mandments of God stands in communion with Him (he in God, and God 
in him), and is conscious of this fellowship through the Spirit given him 
of God (iii. 24), to a further reference to the false teachers, which he 
commences with the warning: “ Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits 
whether they are of God.” He gives the characteristic mark of the 
Spirit that is of God, and also of the spirit of Antichrist, assures the 
believers of victory over false teachers, and presents the difference between 
them and the true apostolic teachers: “They are of the world, wherefore 
they speak of the world, and the world hears them; we are of God; who- 
soever knoweth God heareth us” (iv. 1-6).— Without introducing any 
ideas to mark the transition thereto, the apostle now utters the exhorta- 
tion: “Let us love one another,” which he establishes by saying that love 


INTRODUCTION. 441 


is of God, or—as he also says—that God is love. God has proved His 
love by sending His Son to be a propitiation for our sins; but if God 
has loved us so much, we ought also to love one another. When we do 
this, then God is in us, and lets us know that He is by His Spirit (iv. 
7-13). Having pointed out that the manifestation of the love of God is 
the substance of apostolic testimony, and faith therein the condition of 
fellowship with God, the apostle once more utters the thought that God 
is love, in order to urge that communion with Him can consist only in 
love, and that this love manifests itself as perfect by our having confi- 
dence on the day of judgment, since love drives out all fear (iv. 16-18). 
But if the love of God compels us to love Him in return, we must re- 
member that we really love God only in case we love the brethren; for 
the man who does not love the person whom he sees, cannot possibly love 
God whom he does not see (iv. 19-21). That the believer loves the breth- 
ren, the apostle then infers from the fact that he is born of God; for if, 
as such, he loves God who has begotten himself, he must also necessarily 
love those who are begotten of God, i.e., his own brethren (v. 1); and he 
is conscious of this love in that he loves God and keeps His command- 
ments. After remarking that love to God consists in keeping His com- 
mandments, and that God’s commandments are not hard to the believer, 
because being born of God he conquers the world by faith (v. 3-5), the 
apostle proceeds to refer to the divine evidence of the belief that Jesus is 
the Son of God. He describes the latter as having come by water and 
blood, and in proof of this appeals to the testimony of the Spirit. This 
testimony is all the stronger inasmuch as it is a threefold one, viz., that 
of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. If human evidence is accepted, 
much more ought the witness of God to be received. To the believer, 
however, this witness is not merely an external, but also, at the same time, 
an inward thing; viz., the eternal life which has been given him in the 
Son of God (v. 6-12). As already previously, so also here again, the apos- 
tle sets forth, as a main element in the believer’s eternal life, his confi- 
dence that God hears his prayers, and couples with this the exhortation 
to make intercession for the brother who may chance to sin. At the same 
time, however, he distinguishes between the case of the man who sins 
unto death and the man who does not, and explains that his precept 
anent intercession only refers to those who do not sin unto death (v. 13-17). 
—In bringing his Epistle to a close, the apostle once more announces, 
in three propositions, its leading thoughts, viz., that he who is born of 
God does not commit sin; that they, the Christians, are born of God, 


442 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


whilst the world, on the other hand, belongs to the evil one; and that 
they have recéived, through the Son of God, the faculty to recognize Him 
that is true as the substance of their Christian consciousness. After the 
remark, that being in Christ we are in Him that is true, and that He is 
the Son of God and eternal life, the Epistle closes with the exhortation: 
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” 

Concerning the various theories as to the construction of the Epistle, 
compare especially Erdmann, Primae Joannis ep. argumentum, etc., I. 1855; 
Liicke’s Kommentar, § 4, 3d ed. 1856; and Luthardt’s Programm: de primae 
Jo. ep. compositione, 1860. Pre-Reformation commentators hardly troubled 
themselves about the construction of the Epistle at all. After the Refor- 
mation, the theory which first prevailed was that a systematic, logically 
arranged sequence of ideas of any kind is entirely absent from the work 
(Calvin: sparsim docendo et exhortando varius est). After the time of 
Matth. Flaccius, some expositors assumed that it was made up of a num- 
ber of isolated aphorisms, only loosely jointed together, and in which 
various subjects were discussed; though others (Calvin, Hunnius), notwith- 
standing, labored to show a close sequence of ideas in accordance with a 
dogmatic plan. The most ingenious attempt of this kind was that made 
by Bengel, who, basing his argument upon the passage in v. 7 (Receptus), 
traced the construction of the Epistle to the dogma of the Trinity; a 
view adopted also by Sander. The right point of view from which to 
gain an insight into the structure of the Epistle was first discovered by 
Joach. Operinus in his work, Johannis ap. paraenesis ad primos christianos 
de constanter tenenda communione cum patre ac filio ejus Jesu Christi, etc., 
Gottingen, 1741, in which he shows that the purpose which John himself 
has announced in the preface is the same by which he was led in the 
composition of the Epistle throughout. Nearly all modern expositors, 
with the exception of a few of the earlier ones, have followed in the 
path opened up for them by Operinus. But with regard to the coupling 
of the ideas, unanimity has not been attained. 

Whilst Liicke, in dividing the argument into eight groups of ideas, 
approaches at least the aphoristic method, the other modern commenta- 
tors have labored to prove a more stringent arrangement of the thoughts 
conveyed in the book. It is plain, however, on closer study of the work, 
that none of these attempts has really succeeded. The Epistle has indeed 
been divided into different sections, and to each section a separate super- 
scription been given, expressive of the main idea which informs the entire 
argument of that particular portion; but, on the one hand, the same ideas 


INTRODUCTION. 443 


are found repeating themselves in the various sections, and, on the other, 
the leading thought suggested for a particular section does not invariably 
so inform that portion, that it might serve as the point of departure for 
studying its details. In the first edition of this commentary it is asserted, 
— following the view of De Wette,—that the Epistle from chap. i. ver. 5 
till chap. v. ver. 17, may be divided into three groups of ideas, distin- 
guishable from each other by the fact that at the outset of each, as it were, 
a chord is struck which, more or less, gives tone to the melody throughout 
the entire part which it marks. As keynotes for the three sections sug- 
gested, the three truths are indicated: Ist, God is light, i. 5; 2d, Christ 
(or God) is righteous, ii. 28; and 3d, God is love. But that these key- 
notes actually sound throughout the whole of the parts they are respec- 
tively supposed to lead, is not and cannot be proved. 


REMARK. — That the theories respecting the argument suggested by other 
commentators, ancient as well as modern, are insufficient, has been shown by 
Luthardt in the work already quoted; the same remark, however, applies also to 
the construction which he himself — following in the lead of Hofmann (Schrift- 
bew. 2d ed. II. 2, p. 353 ff.) — has proposed, and which divides the Epistle into the 
following five parts: i. 5-ii. 11; ii. 12-27; ii. 28-ili. 24a; ili. 24b-iv. 21; v. 1-21. 
For, when he thus defines the contents of the third part: Salutis futurae spes 
christiana quantum afferat ad vitam sancte agendam, exponitur, it is manifestly 
inappropriate, since the apostle throughout the entire section only refers to the 
Christian hope in ii. 2, from which it is plain that this is not the informing 
main idea of it. Again, when he represents the fourth part as treating of the 
Holy Ghost, his view is indeed so far correct, that, especially in the beginning, 
the discourse does turn upon the Spirit of God; but from iv. 7 onwards the 
development of the argument proceeds independently, without any reference to 
the Spirit, and only in ver. 13 — and even then merely in passing —is there any 
mention of Him made whatever. Much more decidedly does the apostle refer 
to Him in v. 6 ff., which passage, however, according to Luthardt, belongs not 
to the fourth, but to the fifth part, in which the subject treated of is faith. 
But even this definition is doubtful, since faith is discussed not only in v. 1 ff., 
but also, and very distinctly, long previously, in iii. 23 and iv. 13-16. Braune 
hardly attempts a disposition of the Epistle at all. It is true he divides it into 
four parts: namely, Introduction, i. 1-4; first main division, i. 5-ii. 28; second 
main division, ii. 29-v. 11; conclusion, v. 12-21. He also suggests leading chief 
topics for the two main divisions (viz., for the first, God is light; for the second, 
Whosoever is born of the righteous God doeth righteousness). But he only 
indicates as leading main topics the ideas which the apostle expresses in i. 5 and 
ii. 29, that is, at the beginning of the passages which Braune has marked as the 


444 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


chief sections, without showing how these thoughts inform the various groups 
of ideas which follow them. He contents himself with pointing out the simple 
sequence of the ideas as they follow each other in the development of the 
argument. 


In order to understand the construction of the Epistle, the following 
three points are especially to be observed: 1st, The apostle’s object is to 
preserve the readers in the fellowship of God, that their joy may be perfect. 
2d, That the apostle, in order to achieve his end, unfolds especially the 
ideas that fellowship with God is only possible in the case of one whose 
life, rooted in faith in Jesus Christ, and harmonizing in holiness with the 
nature of God, is in love; and that the Christian is not only bound to such 
a life, but also in virtue of his divine birth (which has placed him in a 
relation of absolute antagonism to the world, which is ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ) is 
impelled by an inward necessity to lead it. 38d, That the apostle develops 
these ideas under the conviction that the antichristian lie is present in the 
world, and also that the second advent of Christ is rapidly approaching. 
Keeping these elements in view, it depends upon the identification of the 
various points in the unfolding of the argument in the Epistle when 
the latter takes such a turn that a new feature may be said to enter and 
to inform the discourse which follows. Nearly all commentators are 
agreed, and rightly, that the verses from chap. i. ver. 5 to chap. ii. ver. 11 
form one self-contained group of ideas. The informing and ruling idea of 
. this passage, however, is not a distinct and specific doctrinal proposition, 
intended to be explained in its several parts, but rather the antithesis to 
that indifferentism which ignores the antagonism between fellowship with 
God and a life in sin, in opposition to which the apostle urges that only the 
man who walks in light—or who keeps the divine commandments and 
loves his brother — is in communion with God, and knows Him. The close 
relation in which these propositions stand to each other is shown also 
outwardly by the phrases: ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, x.7.2., chap. i. 6, 8, 10, and ὁ λέγων, 
«.7.A,, il. 4, 6, 8, which are only found here, and is proved by the fact that 
ii. 10, 11, manifestly refers backwards to i. 5, 6.— The argument takes a new 
turn, as most commentators also have noticed, with ii. 12, in which the apos- 
tle, after reminding his readers of their happy experiences in salvation, and 
indicating these as the ground of his writing to them, in direct exhortation 
warns them against the love of the world. With this warning is coupled 
the reference to the antichrists which has impelled the apostle to exhort 
his readers to abide by what they had heard from the beginning, because 
thus alone can they abide in the Son and in the Father, and enjoy ever- 


INTRODUCTION. 445 


lasting life, so that they may not be put to shame on the day of judgment. 
The last turn in the argument shows how closely the apostle has kept in 
view, throughout this exhortation, the intention of the entire Epistle (i. 4). 
Moreover, the fact that the dvrixporo—as the apostle himself asserts 
subsequently —are ἐκ τοὺ κόσμου, justifies our joining together in one whole 
the warning reference to the antichrists, and that against the love of the 
world. — In the foregoing the apostle has indeed shown that if Christians 
are to glory in their communion with God, they must walk in the light 
(that is, in obedience towards God, and in love towards the brethren), 
abstain from fellowship with the world, and faithfully abide by the Word 
of God ; but he has not yet shown how they stand, in accordance with their 
nature, in antagonism to sin, and therefore also to the world. To this proof 
he proceeds in ii. 29, from which onwards he explains in detail how 
Christians as such are born of God, and therefore the children of God, 
who necessarily sanctify themselves in the hope of the future glory, do 
righteousness, and abstain from sin, nay, cannot sin, because the divine 
seed remains in them; whilst, on the other hand, those who commit sin, 
and therefore belong to the world, are the children of the devil. This 
explanation the apostle gives from ii. 29-iii. 10, where, with the words καὶ 
ὃς μὴ ἀγαπῶν, «.7.A., he begins to discourse about brotherly love. But that 
a new section, properly speaking, does not open herewith, notwithstanding 
that the conception of the divine birth recedes into the background, 
appears not only from the nature of the connection with the foregoing, but 
also from the fact that the apostle at the outset holds fast to the contrast 
which he had so sharply defined at the close of the preceding — directing 
the attention of his readers to Cain, who was ἐκ τοὺ πονηροὺ, as the repre- 
sentative of the world. The immediate transition from the conception of 
the δικαιοσύνη to that of the ἀγάπη cannot excite surprise if we consider that 
to the mind of the apostle the latter was not something added to the 
former, but is the δικαιοσύνη itself in its practical manifestation. The 
propositions which treat of love, and in which the line of argument is so 
plainly defined by the intention of the work, hang so closely together down 
to ver. 22, that, although one new element after another is introduced, still 
it is impossible to make a new section until, in ver. 23, to the conception of 
brotherly love there is added that of faith in the name of Jesus Christ 
the Son of God. This, however, dare all the less be overlooked, since in the 
whole discussion hitherto the element of faith, so weighty for the purpose 
of the work, has nowhere been exhaustively considered, nor even the word 


πιστεύειν been ouce introduced. It is true the apostle seems immediately 


440 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


afterwards to pass on to something else, since in iv. 1-6 he discourses of 
the difference between the antichristian spirit and the Spirit of God, and 
in iv. 7-21 of the love of the brethren ; nevertheless, on closer examination 
it is manifest that in these sections the reference to faith is maintained 
throughout. In the section iv. 1-6, namely, the ὁμολογεῖν ᾿Ιησοὺῦν Χριστόν, 
k.T.A., iS given as the characteristic of the Spirit of God. This ἜΣ 
however, is nothing else than the belief εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τ. υἱοῦ Θεοὺ ᾿Ι. Χριστοῦ, 
expressing itself in words. That the apostle, while he would exhort his 
readers to hold fast their faith, first of all calls on them to try the spirits, 
need not surprise us when we think of the danger threatened to believers 
by the false teachers that had arisen. It may appear more strange that in 
ver. 7, with the exhortation ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, there is a transition to a 
train of thought that treats of love; but it is to be observed, not only that 
in iii. 23, ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους is closely connected with πιστεύσωμεν, x.7.A., but 
also that the further statements about love serve exactly to explain its 
connection with faith. The thought of the apostle is this: He only lives in 
God who loves God; God can only be loved because He is love; God has 
revealed Himself as love by the sending of His Son to be a propitiation for 
sin, therefore love to God is conditioned by faith in this act of the divine love. 
But while the believing Christian, who as such is born of God, now loves 
God, his love extends also to his brethren who, as he is, are born of God. 
In the development of these ideas, not only do the preceding statements of 
the apostle about brotherly love obtain their special confirmation, but 
the necessity of faith for fellowship with God is also set forth, so that the 
apostle in what follows, after referring to the world-overcoming power of 
faith, can proceed to treat of the divine evidences for faith, and emphasize 
the fact that the believer has eternal life, and therein possesses παῤῥησία πρὸς 
τὸν Gevv. The ideas from iii. 23 to v. 17 are so grouped into a whole, as 
indeed may be perceived in them, that v. 13 (οἱ πιστεύοντες εἰς τὸ ὀνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ 
τοὺ Θεοῦ) plainly refers backwards to iii. 23, in addition to which it is to be 
observed that the concluding thought here bears the same reference to the 
purpose stated in i. 4 as the concluding thought of the preceding group. 
From this explanation it is clear, that if we lay aside the preface, i 1-4, 
and the conclusion, v. 18-21, three points are to be noticed in the Epistle, 
at which the development of ideas takes such a direction that a newly 
introduced point of view dominates what follows, and that the Epistle 
therefore divides itself into four leading sections, namely, i. 5-11. 11; ii. 
12-28; ii. 239-111. 22; and iii. 23-v. 17. In order to fulfil in his readers the 


purpose of his writing, the apostle in the jirst section attacks the moral 


INTRODUCTION. 447 


indifference which endangers them; in the second he warns them of love of 
the world and of antichrist; in the third he shows that only a righteous 
life of brotherly love corresponds to the nature of the Christian; and in the 
fourth he points them to faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as that 
which is testified by God to be the basis of Christian life. 

3. Motive. — From chap. ii. 18 ff. and iv. 1 ff. it is to be understood that 
the appearance of the false teachers, spoken of by him as ἀντίχριστοι, fur- 
nished the special motive for the production of this Epistle. These are 
neither different false teachers (according to Storr, Sabians and Docetans; 
according to Sander, Ebionites and Docetans), nor even “true Jews as 
deniers of the Messiahship of Jesus ” (Loffler, Disert. hist. exeg. Joannis Ep. 
I. gnosticos impugnari negans, 1784, and Commt. theol., ed. Velthusen, vol. I.), 
nor “practical false teachers, proceeding from heathenism” (Baumgarten- 
Crusius), nor “such men as partly had suffered shipwreck of their faith, 
and partly did not practise worthily the Christian belief in their lives” 
(Bleek); but Docetans, and indeed such Docetans as denied the identity 
of Jesus and Christ, and so adhered to that false doctrine which Irenaeus 
ascribes to Cerinthus in the words: 
. Joseph et Mariae filium . 
ee Christin, >. 


Cerinthus . . . subjecit, Jesum... 


fuisse . . . . post baptismum descendisse in eum 
Not 
only the passages named, but also v. 5, 6, 1. 3, iii. 23, iv. 15, point to this 


form of Docetism only (so also Braune). 


. in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu. 


Without foundation is the view 
of several commentators (Sander, Licke, Ewald, also Thiersch, Hilgenfeld, 
who, however, is not definitely decided, and others), that the polemical 
purpose of the apostle was equally, or even alone, directed against the 
stricter Docetism which ascribed to Christ only an apparent body, on behalf 
of which appeal is erroneously made to 1 John i. 1, iv.2; 2 John 7. — 
That the former Docetans had a distinct antinomian direction, or in their 
darkness of knowledge in regard to duty felt themselves elevated to a moral 
course of life (Hilgenfeld, Thiersch, Guericke, Ewald, etc.), cannot be 
inferred from the moral exhortations of the apostle (comp. Briickner) ; it 
is much rather to be observed, that nowhere in these exhortations does the 
apostle refer to the antichristians, and that where he does mention them 
he nowhere characterizes them as Antinomians.? 


1 We may also unite the first and second 
sections more closely in one whole; for the 
former contains the premises for the warning 
uttered in the latter. In the threefold division 


which then arises, the conclusion of each part 


points to the joy of which the Christian par- 
takes in fellowship with God. 

2 In opposition to the view that the passage, 
iii. 4, bears evidence for the Antinomianism of 
the false doctrine, Neander (Gesch. d. Pflanz- 


448 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


According to Liicke and Erdmann, the Epistle was occasioned not only 
by the appearance of the antichristians, but also by the critical state of the 
churches to which it is addressed (which Erdmann describes as a state of 
moral depravity). But although some of it, especially the antithetical 
import of the section, i. 5-ii. 11, indicates that in the case of many 
indifference to holiness of life was not wanting, yet nowhere do we find 
any blame expressed in regard to the moral condition of the churches on 
the whole. The apostle does not exhort his readers to rgturn to the moral 
earnestness originally displayed by the Christians, but to perseverance in 
that which they are and have. 


SEC. 2.—FORM AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. 


1. The Form. — While the mass of ancient writers regarded this com- 
position as a letter, Heidegger first speaks of it in his Enchiridion bibl., 
1681, p. 986, as, brevis quaedam christianae doctrinae epitome et evangelii a 
Joanne scripti succinctum quoddam enchiridion. Similarly Michaelis judges, 
who understands it as a “treatise,” and indeed as the second part of the 
Gospel; so also Berger (Versuch einer moralischen Einl. ins. N. 1.) and 
Storr (Ueber den Zweck der Evangel. Gesch. u. Briefe Johannis), only that 
the former speaks of it as the practical, the latter as the polemical part of 
the Gospel. Even Bengel (Gnomon, 2d ed.) thinks it is to be called rather 
a libellus than a letter; his reason is, that a letter ad absentes mittitur, 
Joannes autem apud eos, quibus scribebat, eodem tempore fuisse videtur. Reuss 
(Die Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T., p. 217) expresses himself similarly, 
when he would prefer to call it “a homiletical essay, at the most a pastoral, 
the readers of which are present,” rather than an epistle. But, in oppo- 
sition to these views, the work proves itself by the form of its contents to 
be a real epistle. The author shows himself throughout in the most 
lively interchange of thought with his readers; and even though not 
infrequently the objective development of thought predominates, as 15 
peculiar to a treatise, — which, however, is found no less in other Epistles 
of the N. T.,— yet the language always returns involuntarily to the form 
of an address, in which is specially to be observed “the oft-recurring dis- 
tinctive epistolary formula: ταῦτα γράφομεν, Or γράφω, or even ἔγραψα ὑμὶν -- 
in contrast particularly with the formula in the more general historical 


ung der Kirche durch d. Ap., p. 877) rightly gresseth the law committeth sin, for trans- 
remarks, that the apostle against Antinomians gression of the law is sin.” 
would have had to say: ** Whosoever trans- 


INTRODUCTION. 449 


writing, the Fourth Gospel: ταῦτα γέγραπται without ὑμῖν, xx. 31; comp. 
xix. 35 and xxi. 24” (Liicke). Diisterdieck rightly remarks that “the 
epistolary nature expresses itself in the whole import and progress of the 
work,” inasmuch as in it “there dominates that easy naturalness and 
freedom in the composition and presentation, which corresponds with the 
immediate practical interest and with the practical purpose of an epistle” 
(comp. Bleek, Einl. in d. N. T., p. 589, and Braune, Finl., § 5).— The 
absence of a blessing or a doxology at the close occurs also in the Epistle of 
James, and there is nothing strange in it; but it is rather striking that the 
epistolary introduction is also wanting to the work, as the author neither 
mentions himself, nor the readers to whom he is writing; in the Epistle to 
We must 
explain this want in this way, that, on the one hand, the apostle pre- 


the Hebrews, however, such an introduction is also omitted. 


supposed that the readers would recognize him as the author of the Epistle 
without his naming himself in it, and, on the other, that he did not intend 
it for a single church, or for a limited circle of churches.1_ The description 
of this work as a second part of the Gospel is so much the more arbitrary, 
as each of those works forms in itself a completed whole. — The view of 
some critics and commentators (Augusti, who calls the Epistle a summary 
of the Gospel; Hug, Frommann in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, Heft 4; 
Thiersch in Versuch zur Herstellung des hist. Stdpktes., Ὁ. 78, and Die Kirche 
im apostol. Zeitalter, p. 266; Ebrard in Kritik der evangel. Geschichie, p. 148, 
and in his Commentary), that the Epistle is a companion-work of the Gospel, 
is opposed by the contents of the Epistle, which follow an individual aim, 
as well as by the complete absence of a distinctly indicated reference to 
the written Gospel. In opposition to Reuss, according to whose view the 


1 In opposition to Ebrard, who, admitting 
the epistolary character of the work, thinks 
that this want may be easily explained if the 
epistle ‘‘ had no individual aim in itself, but 
depended on something else,’”? inasmuch as 
‘by its form it bears the nature of a sort of 
preface, or of an epistola dedicatoria,” it is to 
be remarked that the Epistle, from its whole 
character, cannot be at all compared to a pre/- 
ace, and that in an epistola dedicatoria this 
want would be just as striking as in any other 
epistle. 

2 Ebrard derives the proof for his opinion 
from i, 1-4 and from ii. 12-14, referring amay- 
γέλλομεν in the former passage, and the thrice- 


repeated ἔγραψα in the latter, to the writing 
of the Gospel. That this ts without adequate 
ground, comp. the commentary on these; but 
even if this reference were correct, yet the 
description of the Epistle as a “‘ sort of dedica- 
tory epistle’? would still remain unjustified, 
for its purpose is clearly quite other than to 
We would 
then have to call every epistle, in which refer- 
ence is made to another work, a dedicatory 


dedicate the Gospel to its readers. 


epistle. Even the designation ‘* companion- 
work ”’ is unsatisfactory, because it does not at 
all appropriately state the true character of 
the Epistle in accordance with its actual con- 


tents. 


450 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Epistle “was destined to bring home to the readers of the Gospel the 
practical side of the Gnosis there laid down,” it is to be observed that 
neither is the practical side wanting in the Gospel, nor the Gnosis in the 
Epistle. 

2. The Character.— The same peculiarity of conception, development 
of thought, and form of expression, which characterize the Gospel of John, 
penetrate the Epistle also, and distinguish it from all other Epistles of 
the N. T. There dominate in it the same spiritual tendency, and the 
same preference for the concrete and abstract ideas: ὃ ἦν, k.7.2., φῶς, ζωῆ, ζωὴ 
αἰώνιος, ἱλασμός: ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτιαν, π. τὴν ἀνομίαν, a τὴν δικαιοσύνην; εἶναι ἐκ τῆς 
ἀληθείας, etc.; the same combination of antitheses: φῶς... σκοτία; ἀλήθεια 


«νον Ψεῦδος; ἀγαπᾶν... μισεῖν; ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός. .. 7 ay. τοῦ κόσμου; ποιεῖν 


τὴν δικαιοσύνην... π. τὴν ἁμαρτίαν: τὰ τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ... τὰ T. τοῦ διαβόλου; τὸ 


πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας... τ. πν. τῆς πλάνης: ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον... ἁμαρτία 
πρὸς θάνατον: ζωῇ . . . θάνατος, etc.; the same continuation of the thought by 
the resumption of an idea that has preceded, and the accompanying and 
correspondingly unusual application of the relative pronoun; the same 
Both 


works, as Ebrard brings out, bear the same impress, not only in style and 


juxtaposition of the positive and negative expression of a thought. 


construction, but also in the sphere of ideas, and in the dogmatic views; 
comp. also Ewald, Die Joh. Schriften, I. p. 429 ff.— With regard to the 
Epistle especially, here, in contrast to the dialectical development of 
thought which is characteristic of the Pauline Epistles particularly, the 
individual propositions follow one another in gnomon fashion,’ and 
unitedly form groups of ideas, which are sometimes strung together without 
any mark of the transition.2 Even the proof of an idea takes place in the 
simplest manner by reference to a truth self-evident to the Christian 
consciousness. By the peculiar manner of connection of the ideas arises 
the appearance of rather frequent repetition of the same thoughts; but on 
closer observation it is evident that even where the negative expression 
follows the positive, or vice versa, generally both expressions do not say 
the same thing, but that in the second a new element is taken up, a new 


1 Comp. on this, Ewald, D. Joh. Schriften, nection.”” But it might be more appropriate 


I. p. 441. 

2 Diisterdieck finds the peculiarity of the 
manner of development and statement of 
thought in the Epistle in this, ‘‘ that the ideas 
move, combine, and circle round certain lead- 
ing propositions as points of support and con- 


to perceive it in this, that the apostle by single 
leading thoughts strikes as it were chords, 
which he allows to sound for a while in the 
thoughts deduced for them, until a new chord 
results, which leads to a new strain. 


INTRODUCTION. 451 


direction is prepared for. Characteristic is the simplicity and plainness 
of statement. Whether the apostle states divine truths by themselves, 
whether he discourses in exhortation or in warning to his readers, his 
language always retains the same calmness and precision. He nowhere 
shows a disposition excited by passion. Everywhere the stillness of a 
heart reposing in happy peace is mirrored, and having this he is sure that 
the simple utterance of the truth is enough to procure for his discourse an 
entrance into the minds of his readers. At the same time, a firm, manly 
tone pervades the Epistle, in contrast with every weak fanaticism of 
sentiment, which is so little characteristic of the apostle, that he, along with 
the internal character of life, constantly urges that the reality of it is 
proved by action. It is also worthy of notice, that, on the one hand, he 
speaks to his readers as a father to his children, but, on the other hand, 
does not ignore the fact that they are no longer minors, to whom he has 
some new information to give, but are quite like himself, and are, like 
himself, in possession of all the truth which he utters, of all the life which 
he is anxious, not to produce in them for the first time, but only to main- 
tain in them. Against the reproach that the Epistle bears “the clearest 
traces of the feebleness of old age” (S. G. Lange), or that — as Baur says 
— “it is wanting in the fresh color of direct life,” that “the tenderness and 
fervor of John’s manner of conception and representation have relaxed far 
too much into a tone of childlike feebleness, which loses itself in indefi- 
niteness, falls into continual repetitions, and is lacking in logical force,” 
it must be maintained that the Epistle bears the impress of directness, 
freshness, definiteness, and vigorous clearness in no degree less than the 
Gospel of John. 


SEC. 3. — GENUINENESS. 


According to the testimony of antiquity, the Epistle was written by the 
Apostle John, which is confirmed by the Epistle itself, in so far as that the 
author, in the whole tone in which he speaks to his readers, and in particular 
expressions (i. 1, 111, 5, iv. 14), may be recognized as an apostle, and that 
the agreement with the Gospel of John favors the conclusion that both 


1 Hilgenfeld rightly states, in opposition to  ianity;” ‘that the fresh, vivid, attractive 
Baur, that the Epistle belongs to the most character of the Epistle, consists exactly in 
beautiful writings of the N. T., that it is this, that it conducts us with such a predilec- 
specially rich and original “exactly in what tion into the inner experience of genuine 
relates to the subjective, inner life of Christ- Christian life.’ 


452 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


works proceed from the same author. Eusebius (H. E., iii. 24, 25) rightly 
reckons it among the Homologoumena; and Hieronymus (De viris illustr., 
6. 9), says: ab universis ecclesiasticis eruditis viris probatur. —In the writings 
of the Apostolic Fathers, it is true, the Epistle is not considered in a 
definite way; but the passage found in Polycarp, cap. vii.: πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ 
ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν, etc., may be recog- 
nized as a “natural use of 1 John iv. 2,3” (Diisterdieck), by deduction from 
particular resemblances to some expression or other of the Epistle;1 and 
Eusebius (H. E., iii. 39) states of Papias: κέχρηται δ᾽ 6 αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ 
τῆς Ἰωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως. ---- By the Fathers of the 
church: Tertullian (Adv. Praz., ec. 15; Scorp.,c. 12; Adv. Marc., iii. 8; de 
Praescript., c. 33; De Carne Christi, α. 24), Irenaeus (Adv. Haeret., iii. 16), 
Clemens Alex. (Strom., 1. ii. ο. 15, 1. iii. ὁ. 4, 5, 6; Paedag., iii. 11, 12, etc.), 
Origen (in Euseb., H. E., vi. 25), Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. and Ep. 25), 
passages are frequently quoted from it, often with explicit mention of the 
apostle. Dionysius Alex. uses it, along with the Gospel, to prove the 


spuriousness of the Apocalypse; the Peshito and the Muratorian Fragment? 


1 Inthe Zp. ad Diognet. several expressions 
appear, which point back to John’s mode of 
thought; so cap. vi.: Χριστιανοὶ ἐν κόσμῳ 
οἰκοῦσιν, οὐκ εἰσὶ δὲ ἐκ TOD κόσμου ; Cap. Vii.: 
6... Θεὸς... - τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὸν λόγον 
τὸν ἅγιον καὶ ἀπερινόητον ἀνθρώποις ἐνίδρυσε; 
cap. xi: οὗτος 6 ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς; as also in the 
Shepherd lib. ii. 
πιστεύει TH Θεῷ. OTL πάντα τὰ αἰτήματά σου, 


ἃ αἰτῇ, λήψῃ (comp. 1 John iii. 23, iv. 15); 


of Hermas, mand. 9: 


lib. ii. mand. 12: εὐκόλως αὐτὰς (1.6., Tas 
ἐντολὰς Tov Θεοῦ) φυλάξεις, καὶ οὐκ ἔσονται 
σκληραί (comp. 1 John ν. 8). 

2 By the words: ‘‘epistola sane Jude et 
superscriptio [superscripti; or, according 
to Laurent, Neutest. Studien, pp. 201, 205: 
superscriptae = ‘provided with superscrip- 
[duae] 


habentur,” are not meant, as Braune sup- 


tions’] Joannis duas in catholica 
poses, the first and second, but the second 
and third Epistles. 
previously written: “Quid ergo mirum,’ si 


When, however, it is 


Johannes tam constanter singula etiam in 
epistolis suis proferat dicens in semet ipso; 
quae vidimus oculis nostris et auribus audi- 
vimus et manus nostrae palpaverunt, haec 


scripsimus,” this is a clear evidence for the 
composition of the First Epistle by the 
Apostle John. 
edition of this commentary, in the Theol. 
Literaturblatt zur allg. Kirchenatg., 1855, 
No. 92, thinks, indeed, that in the words: 
“quarti evangeliorum Joannis ex discipulis,” 


The reviewer of the first 


the Presbyter John is indicated as the author 
of the Gospel, because it is not said ex 
apostolis; but that the author of the Frag- 
ment indicates by the expression discipult 
such disciples of Jesus as were not apostles, 
can neither be proved by the fact that Papias 
(in Euseb., H. Z., iii. 39) calls the Presbyter 
John a disciple (μαθητής) of Jesus, nor by the 
fact that afterwards ‘‘ex apostolis”’ is added 
to characterize Andrew. If the author of the 
Fragment had regarded as the author of 
the Gospel, not the Apostle, but the Presbyter 
John, he would certainly have expressed this 
definitely. The expression ex discipulis 
presented itself to him here so much the 
more naturally, as he had immediately before 
spoken of Luke, and said of him: “" Dominum 
nec ipse vidit in carne.’’ — Rightly, therefore, 


Liicke, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, and others 


INTRODUCTION. 453 


also testify to its genuineness. That the Alogi rejected it, as Epiphanius 
conjectures, and that Marcion did not admit it into his canon, is of no 
importance; just as little is the highly obscure account of Cosmas in his 
Topogr. Christ., 1. vii., according to which some maintain that all the catholic 
epistles were composed, not by apostles, but by presbyters; and the remark 
of Leontius Byz. (Contra Nestor. et Eutychian, iii. 14) in regard to Theodore 
of Mopsv.: Epistolam Jacobi et alias deinceps aliorum catholicas abrogat et 
antiquat; comp. on this Liicke’s Comment. Introd., § 8, 4, p. 135 ff., 3d ed. 
— The genuineness continued unchallenged until first Jos. Scaliger came 
forward with the assertion: tres epistolae Joannis non sunt apostoli Joannis ; 
‘since then it has been variously disputed. Sam. J. Lange, indeed, recognized 
the unanimous testimony of antiquity as too significant to permit of denial 
of the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, but he, nevertheless, regarded it 
as a writing not worthy of the apostle; Claudius (Uransichten des Christenth., 
p. 52 ff.) went further, explaining it as the performance of a Jewish 
Christian, whick was revised by a Gnostic. Bretschneider (in his Proba- 
bilien) and Paulus ascribe it to the Presbyter John, while they, however, at 
the same time, maintained the identity of the author of the Epistle and the 
author of the Gospel; Horst (Museum fiir Religionswissensch. Henke, 1803, 
vol. i.) declared himself against this. — The later Tiibingen school cannot, 
in consequence of their conception of the development of Christianity, 
regard either the Gospel or the Epistle as the work of the apostle; the 
admission of the genuineness of one of these writings would overthrow their 
whole historical construction. Since, therefore, the adherents of this school 
are agreed in denying the genuineness of both writings, they, nevertheless, 
explain in different ways the relation of them to one another. K. R. 
Kostlin (Lehrbegr. des Ev., etc.) and W. Georgii (Ueber die eschatolog. 
Vorstellungen der N. T. Schrifisteller ; Theol. Jahrb., Tibingen, 1845) ascribe 
both writings (even the second and third Epistles) to the same author. 
After Zeller, who, in his “ Beitrdégen zur Einl. in die Apokalypse” (in the 
Theol. Jahrb., Tiibing., 1842) presupposed the identity of the author in his 
review of Kostlin’s writings (Theol. Jahrb., 1845), and K. Planck (‘“ Juden- 
thum und Urchristenth.” in the Theol. Jahrb., 1847) had intimated the opposite 
view, the former position was strongly defended by Baur (Die Joh. Briefe, 
in the Theol. Jahrb., 1848, 3), and by Hilgenfeld (Das Evang. u. die Briefe 
Joh., 1849, and “0. Joh. Briefe” in the Tiib. theol. Jahrb , 1855, part iv.); 


(comp. also Meyer in his Comment. on regarded the Murat. Fragm. as evidence for 
Gospel of John, and Laurent as above) have the apostolic origin of the Epistie. 


454 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


but with this difference, that the former explains the Epistle as the copy, the 
latter as the pattern of the Gospel. 

For the non-identity of the authors, it is specially advanced, that, in the 
Gospel, a “ more ideal and internal,” in the, Epistle, on the other hand, “a 
This difference 
While the author of 
the Epistle expects a visible “ material” (!) parousia of Christ, the Evangelist 


more material and external,” mode of thought dominates. 
is to be chiefly recognized in the eschatological ideas. 


is held to know only of a “re-appearance of Christ in the spirit of His 
disciples,” and of a merely “ present” judgment, because for him “the future 
has already become the present.” How incorrect, however, this assertion is, 
is proved by passages such as Gospel of John ν. 28, 29, vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, in 
which, distinctly enough, a future day of resurrection of the dead, and of 
judgment by Christ, is spoken of (comp. Weiss, p. 179 ff.); and, as in this 
the Gospel is quite in agreement with the Epistle, so, on the other hand, the 
Epistle expresses, no less distinctly than the Gospel, the idea of a resurrec- 
The 


fundamental conceptions, therefore, are the same in both writings; the only 


tion, already accomplished in belief, of Christians from the dead.! 


difference is that in the Epistle the thought is expressed that the ἐσγάτη ὥρα 
is already, — but in the Gospel there was plainly no room for the expression 
of this thought. — For that difference between the material and the ideal 
conception, Baur appeals, moreover, to 1 John v. 6, comp. with Gospel xix. 
34, and Hilgenfeld (1849) to 1 John i. 5,7. Baur asserts, that in place of 
the ideal import which the two symbols, blood and water, have in the 
Gospel, the sacramental appears in the Epistle. This assertion, however, 
is based on a false interpretation of both of those passages, since neither 
has the circumstance recorded in the Gospel, xix. 34, the meaning “that 
death (of which the blood is the symbol) is the necessary preliminary 
condition under which alone the Spirit (of which the water is the symbol [!]) 
can be communicated to the believer;” nor is 1 John v. 6 to be directly 
interpreted of the coming of Christ in or through the two sacraments, 
baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Besides, it is rather strange to call the 


conception of water and blood as the two sacraments, a material one. — 


1 Ἴπ the article of Hilgenfeld quoted above, 
he thinks that ““ there is undeniably a different 
representation of the last day, when the 
author of the Epistle exhorts his readers so to 
deport themselves that they may meet the 
judgment day without shame, and when, on 
the other hand, the Evangelist excludes 


believers from the judgment;” but neither 


of these views is at all exclusive of the other; 
it is only to be remembered that the future 
judgment for those who here already have 
passed from death into life, who here already 
possess the ζωὴ αἰώνιος (1 John v. 13), is such 
that for them it is not a judgment in that 
sense in which it is a judgment for the 


wicked. 


INTRODUCTION. | 455 


Hilgenfeld thinks that when in 1 John i. 5, 7, it is said of God that He is 
φῶς, nay, that He is ἐν τῷ φωτί, a representation is expressed which “has too 
much the ideas of matter and of space in it for the Evangelist to have any 
connection with it,” since he uses φῶς only as predicate of the Logos. But 
from the application which is made in the Epistle of the thought there 
expressed, it is clear that the writer of the Epistle, in the idea φῶς, did not 
think less of any thing than of something “ pertaining to matter and space.” 
That alleged difference, therefore, does not exist; the groundless pretence 
of it proves neither the hypothesis of Baur, that the Epistle is the per- 
formance of an imitator of the Gospel, nor that of Hilgenfeld, that it 
belongs to an earlier stage of development than the latter. Nevertheless, 
according to Baur, we may recognize the imitative hand not only in the 
character of the whole epistle (see on fhis Sec. 2), but in the passages 
i. 1-4 and v. 6-9; according to Hilgenfeld (1849), the earlier stage of 
‘development may be perceived in the O. T. conception expressed in the 
Epistle, and in its views of the Logos and of the Holy Spirit. In regard 
to the passage i. 1-4, Baur says: “In all the features, in which the author 
himself would give us a picture of his personality, the premeditated most 
anxious concern cannot be mistaken, to be regarded as one person with 
the Evangelist ;” but that those verses are only to serve “to give a picture 
of the personality of the author,” is a groundless supposition of Baur. In 
the other passage (v. 6-9, comp. with John viii. 16 ff.) Baur sees nothing 
but a mere playing on words, “for the μαρτυρία τοῦ cov has the same 
subject as the μαρτυρία τῶν ἀνθρώπων, and the latter differs from the former 
only in this, that the three—spirit, water, and blood—are counted as 
three, and it therefore consists of nothing else than the numerical relation 
of those three to one another, which again is immediately annulled when 
it is said that it is God that bears witness in those three.” But this entire 
conclusion is purely fanciful; for, on the one hand, the μαρτυρία τῶν ἀνθρώπων 
is not at all spoken of, in regard to its subject, as identical with the μαρτυρία 
τοῦ Θεοῦ; and, on the other hand, in the mention of the former μαρτυρία, 
the numerical relation is not alluded to by a single syllable. — Hilgenfeld 
asserts that the epistle stands in a more intimate relationship to the O. T. 
law than the Gospel does. The proof of this is supposed to lie in the 
passages 1 John iii. 4 and ii. 7,8; but with regard to the first passage, 
the idea ἀνομία in no way hints at the Mosaic law; and besides, if the 
author attached a higher importance to the Mosaic νόμος than the Evangel- 
ist, he would somewhere state its signification; this, however, he is so far 
from doing, that the idea νόμος never appears in his work at all. With 


450 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


regard to the second passage, Hilgenfeld, indeed, admits that ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς 
refers to the transition to Christianity, but thinks that “this old com- 
mandment of love is not set forth as it is in the Gospel, as an absolutely 
new one which first receives its rule through the love of the Saviour to 
His people;” but, apart from the explanation of that passage itself, the 
immediately preceding verse, and, moreover, what is written in iii. 16 and 
iv. 7 ff. about love, shows how unfounded is the assertion of Hilgenfeld. 
It is not any thing better with the remark of Hilgenfeld (1849), that “the 
greatest probability is in favor of the statement that the idea of the 
personal Logos is still foreign to the Epistle, whilst it is distinctly expressed 
in the Gospel;” this Hilgenfeld infers from this, that for description of 
what is loftier in Christ the expression ὁ λόγος is not used in the Epistle.? 
But even if in the expression 6 λόγος τῆς ζωῆς the idea λόγος had the meaning 
of “doctrine,” yet the supposition of Hilgenfeld would still be unjustified, 
since it cannot be denied that ἡ ζωὴ (ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος), Whereby the superhuman 
that appeared in Christ is indicated, is considered by the writer of the 
Epistle as hypostatic nature, nor that the υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is identical with 
Nay, the whole Epistle in the 
most unmistakable manner presupposes the hypostatic nature of the 
Son of God. — That, finally, the writer of the Epistle ascribed no per- 
sonality to the Holy Spirit, can neither be proved by this, that he does 


Him who in the Gospel is called ὁ λόγος. 


not call Him ὁ παράκλητος, nor by this, that He indicates Him by the 
expression χρίσμα; the words τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ μαρτυροῦν especially, 1 John v. 
6 comp. with John xv. 26, presuppose His personality.2— For proof of 
the non-identity, Baur finally appeals to this, that the “representation 
of Christ as the παράκλητος, i.e., the intereeding High Priest, accords 
more with the sphere of ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews than with 
that of the Gospel; that thereby intervening thoughts are inserted into 
John’s view of the relation of Jesus to those who believe on Him, which 
lay far from the horizon of the Evangelist.” But if Baur were right in 
this assertion, then there would exist not only a difference between the 
Epistle and the Gospel, but a difference between the Epistle and itself, 
since, apart from those representations, quite the same view of the relation 
Along with this he 


2 In the article of 1855 this is merely no- χρῖσμα and σπέρμα. 


ticed, without the former inference being 
drawn from it. 

2 In the article of 1855, Hilgenfeld finds the 
difference only in this, that in the Epistle 
the Holy Spirit is not called παράκλητος, but 


admits, however, that the Gospel, in the 
expression ἄλλος παράκλητος shows an agree- 
ment with the Epistle, in which Christ is 
spoken of as παράκλητος. 


INTRODUCTION. 457 


of Jesus to believers dominates in the Epistle as in the Gospel; with 
regard, however, to those representations, they are not peculiar to the 
Epistle to the Hebrews only, but are a common property of the apostles, 
as they are expressed in the Epistle to the Romans (comp. chap. iii. 25 
and viii. 34) with no less distinctness than in the former. 

The reasons adduced by Baur and Hilgenfeld are therefore unable to 
shake the conviction of combined antiquity, that both writings come from 
one and the same author. That each of the works—along with all unity 
of conception and of expression —has its own peculiarities, is naturally 
caused both by the difference of their object, and by the living activity of 
the Spirit from whom they both proceeded. It is also to be observed, 
that in the Gospel it is chiefly the Master, in the Epistle the disciple, that 
speaks, —a fact to which the Tibingen critics can certainly attach no 
importance. There is, however, the further question as to the character 
of the reasons which are said to be opposed to the genuineness of the 
Epistle, and to prove that the author of it could not be the Apostle John. 
When S. G. Lange says that on account of “its lack of all individual 
references, its slavish imitation of the Gospel, the too great generality of 
the thoughts, the traces of the feebleness of old age, the non-reference to 
the destruction of Jerusalem,” he only reluctantly regards the Epistle as 
the work of an apostle; these reasons are of such arbitrarily subjective 
character as to require no refutation. Of greater importance, indeed, iss 
the frequently-expressed assertion, that the Epistle refers to circumstances 
which first belong to a time later than that of the apostles. As such 
Bretschneider regarded the doctrine of the Logos and the Docetism con- 
tended against in the Epistle; but “without the previous existence and 
assurance of a canonical doctrine of the Logos, the patristic doctrine 
from Justin on would be almost inexplicable” (Liicke), and that Docetism 
— to which the Jewish as well as the heathen speculation must be added, 
when, without giving itself up, it amalgamated with Christianity — first 
belonged to the post-apostolic age, is historically an unjustifiable assertion. 
— After Planck (in the article already quoted) advanced the view that 
the author of the Epistle moves in the Montanist sphere of thought, as he 
“seeks to transform the external Jewish-Christian mode of conception 
into the deeper, more internal mode of John,” Baur developed it further. 
He explains the Epistle directly as a writing belonging to Montanism. His 
proofs of this are: (1) the thought that the fellowship of Christians is 
sinless, holy; (2) the mention of the χρίσμα; and (3) the distinction between 
venial and mortal sins. But how weak are these reasons! If the Mon- 


458 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


tanists considered themselves as the Spirituales, in contrast to the rest of 
the Christians, who in their eyes were Psychici, this is plainly something 
very different from the representation of the Epistle that believing Chris- 
tians—in contrast to the unholy world—form a holy fellowship. Τῇ 
the Epistle says that Christians possess the holy χρῖσμα, there lies therein 
nothing but an allusion to the custom, first mentioned by Tertullian, of 
And if in 1 John v. 16 the 
ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον is distinguished from the ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον, this 


anointing candidates for baptism with holy oil. 


distinction is of a very different character from the Montanist distinction 
between venial and mortal sins. Baur, indeed, maintains that in the 
Epistle the same sins are called mortal sins, as in Tertullian; but while 
Tertullian represents as mortal sins, homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, 
blasphemia, moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi Dei, Baur 
arbitrarily selects only three of these, namely idolatry, murder, adultery or 
fornication, which are alleged to be spoken of in the Epistle as mortal sins. 
To idolatry, namely, not only chap. v. 21, but also chap. 111. 4, is alleged 
to refer; to murder, chap. iii. 15;1 and to πορνεία, which is nowhere 
mentioned in the Epistle itself, the superscription that appears in Augustin 
(corrupted from πρὸς παρθένους) : ad Parthos.— The hypothesis so feebly 
established (comp. Liicke’s incisive refutation in the 3d ed. of his com- 
ment.), of the Montanism of the writer of the Epistle, found in Hilgenfeld 
‘an opponent in the Tiibingen school itself. In opposition to it,? Hilgenfeld 
has attempted to show that not only the false doctrine of the antichristians 
who are contended against in the Epistle, but also many of the views of 
the author himself, would go to prove that the appearance of the Epistle 
is to be fixed at the time immediately preceding that in which Gnosticism 
was at its prime. As Gnostic elements in the system of the epistle, 
Hilgenfeld specifies the idea of the σπέρμα (iii. 9), the thought that we 


1 Baur himself admits that with regard to aut verecundia aut necessitate mentiri. In 


these two points the author does not mean 
“the outward action,” but ‘altogether the 
inner character of the moral sentiment;” but 
if that be the case, then it is clear that his 
position is not iz Montanism, but outside it, 
since in Montanism it is precisely zctions, and 
indeed particular, definite actions, that are 
Ter- 
tullian (De Pudicit., α. 19): ‘* Cui non accidit, 
aut irasci inique et ultra solis occasum, aut et 


referred to in that distinction of sins. 


manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut 


temere jurare, aut fidem pacti destruere, 


negotiis, in officiis, in quaestu, in victu, in 
visu, in auditu quanta tentamur, ut si nulla sit 
venia istorum, nemini salus competat,” etc. 

2 Hilgenfeld urges especially that it 1s im- 
possible to conceive that a Montanist author 
would not have known to begin with the idea 
of the Paraclete; and also that the idea of 
special mortal sins already occurs in the 
Περίοδοι Πέτρον (Ree. iv. 36), which belong to 
the pre-Montanist pseudo-Clementine liter- 
ature. 


INTRODUCTION. 459 


should not fear, but only love God (iv. 18, 19), and the idea of the χρῖσμα 
(ii. 20); but these ideas are so essential to the Christian consciousness, 
that it cannot at all be thought of without them. At the most, the 
expressions σπέρμα and χρίσμα might seem strange, but the former so 
naturally suggested itself in connection with the idea of being born of 
God, and of God’s being in him who is' born of Him,! and the latter from 
the antithesis of the Christian to the ἀντίχριστος, ---- especially with the O. T. 
type of anointing,—that a derivation of them from Gnostic fancies is 
entirely unjustified; quite apart from the fact that these ideas play quite 
another part in the Gnostic systems from that which they fulfil in this 
Epistle. Even if it be conceded to Hilgenfeld, further, that the false 
doctrine contended against is Gnostic, yet it cannot be admitted that 
Gnosticism also, as regards its beginnings, belongs first to the post-apostolic 
Hilgenfeld rightly says that the features alluded to by the author of 
the Epistle do not mark a completely definite Gnostic system; but wrongly, 
that therefore the doctrine of Cerinthus must not be thought of, because 
The whole 
character of the polemic of the writer of the Epistle shows, however, that 


time. 


this represents a form of Gnosis as yet quite incomplete. 


he has to do with a system of Gnosticism which, in comparison with the 
systems of the second century, had a form still incomplete. For there is 
only one point which he brings forward, namely Docetism, and indeed that 
form of it which consists of the distinction of the Son of God from the. 
man Jesus, and therefore the same as was propounded by Cerinthus; comp. 
Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, I. p. 314 ff. — That this Docetism was 
associated with an antinomian sentiment “which set itself far above all the 
moral laws of life,” by no means follows, as has already been remarked in 
Sec. 2, from the polemic of the Epistle. — Against the assertion of Baur, 


that even the form of the polemic is decisive against the genuineness of the 


1 In his article of 1855, Hilgenfeld attaches 
the chief importance to the idea of the σπερμα, 
and tries to deduce from 1 John vy. 1, that 


according to the representation of the author ~ 


of the Epistle, “" being born of God is to be 
regarded as the presupposition of Christian 
faith,” and therefore that the σπερμα is, 
according to him, ‘‘the metaphysical ground 
of existence” from which faith proceeds. 
But if the distinction between the texva τοῦ 
Θεοῦ and the τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλον has, according 
to the author, a metaphysical ground lying 
beyond faith, and if the former, by virtue of 


the σπέρμα which is peculiar to them by 
nature, cannot sin — how does this accord 
with the soteriology which is so clearly ex- 
pressed in the Epistle, and according to which 
Christ is the ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν apapTLMY ἡμῶν, 
and the blood of Christ cleanses us ἀπὸ πάσης 
ἁμαρτίας 3 --- Τὰ this article also Hilgenfeld 
derives the ‘‘ repeated assurance that God is 
love,” from the influence of Gnosticism on 
the author, without any regard to the close 
connection with the fundamental essential 
truth of Christianity in-which this is brought 
forward by the author. 


400 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Epistle, since “nothing further is said than just that the false teachers of 
Docetism are antichristians,” it is to be observed that the main force of the 
apostle’s polemic throughout does not consist in negation, but in the positive 
presentment of the truth, in the light of which the antagonistic doctrine is 
manifested as a lie (see on this the excellent exposition of Thiersch, Versuch, 
etc., p- 255). 

The spuriousness of the Epistle (as also of the Gospel, and of John’s 
two other Epistles) also follows, according to Hilgenfeld (article of 1855), 
from the relation of these writings to the Apocalypse. While, namely, he 
presupposes the genuineness of the latter, he maintains that “the contrast 
between it and the Epistles must not be ignored,” and that “the latter 
occupy a middle place between the two most extreme contrasts of the 
Apocalypse and the Gospel.” The contrast is seen, according to him, first, in 
the language (in the Epistles not indeed an Attic, but an easy and versatile 
Greek style; in the Apocalypse, on the other hand, a strongly Hebraizing 
impress); and, second, in the sphere of thought, although he recognizes 
“between the spheres of thought on both sides very essential points of 
contact.” But against these instances it is to be observed —1. That the 
composition of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John is by no means so surely 
established as Hilgenfeld assumes, and is certainly not to be proved by 
stating that it is the product of a still judaistically-narrowed mode of 
conception; 2. That in the explanation of the Hebrew-colored style of the 
Apocalypse, attention is to be paid to the fact that it stands in close 
connection with O. T. prophecy; 3. That the appearance of the contrast, 
alleged by Hilgenfeld, between the spheres of thought on both sides, dis- 
appears when with the necessary critical impartiality they are taken hold of 
with consideration of the entire individual elements which constitute them.? 


1 Hilgenfeld proceeds uncritically in his 
demonstration of the contrast between the 
spheres of thought, inasmuch as he not only 
adducer, as antithetical, ideas which are not 
80, but also ascribes to one or the other 
writing views which are not contained in it. 
The former is, for example, the case when he 
thinks that the idea of an angry God, as is 
peculiar to the Apocalypse, and the idea of 
a God who is dove, as we find it expressed in 
the Epistie, contradict one another; or when 
he asserts that the conception of the Divine 
justice, according to which it is shown as the 


punishment of the wicked, is in contradiction 


to that according to which it appears as the 
forgiveness of sins; when he supposes a con- 
trast between the representation of the Apoca- 
lyptic judgment and the idea of the spiritual 
victory of the Christian over the devil and the 
world, accomplished by means of morality 
and faith. He does the latter when, for 
example, he says that the Apocalypse con- 
siders ‘the political world-power of the 
Roman Empire” as Antichrist, whereas the 
name ἀντίχριστος is never once mentioned in 
the Apocalypse; or when he ascribes to the 
Epistle the idea of a metaphysical antagonism 
between the children of God and the children 


INTRODUCTION. 461 

As the internal tests, which have been asserted to be opposed to the 
genuineness of the Epistle, do not prove the alleged spuriousness; as the 
Epistle much rather bears on the face of it quite the impress of an apostolic 
writing; as it also—as even Hilgenfeld admits — “belongs to the writings 
of the N. T., the genuineness of which was never disputed in the ancient 
Church, and the chain of witnesses who have made use of it begins as far 
back as Papias,” — the composition of it by the Apostle John is as surely 
established as it can ever be. 


SEC. 4.— THE READERS; TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 


1. The Readers. — Augustin says in his Quaest. Evang., ii. 39, when he 
is quoting the passage 1 John iii. 2: scriptum est a Joanne in Epistola ad 
Parthos; this more particular determination of the Epistle is also found 
(only however, in the Benedictine edition of Augustin’s works) in the 
superscription of his treatises on the Epistle; and similarly in Possidius, 
in his Indiculus operum S. Augustini, as he introduces those treatises with 
the words, De Ep. Joannis ad Parthos sermones decem. ‘The same statement, 
it is true, frequently appears later; thus in the work of Vigilius Tapsensis 
(end of the fifth century), published under the name of Idacius Clarus, 
Contra Varimadum Arianum ; in Cassiodorus, De Institut. Divin. Script., ο. 14, 
who, however, refers the words ad Parthos to all the three Epistles; in Col. 
62 of Griesb., and in several lat. codd. (see Guericke, Gesammtgesch. des 
N. T., 1854, p. 486, note 2); but the whole Greek Church, and similarly 
the Latin Church before Augustin, knows nothing of it. It is therefore 
of no importance even for the determination of the original readers of the 
Epistle (against Grotius); nay, it cannot even be said that in it was retained 


an old tradition in regard to the determination of the Epistle or the activity 


of the devil, which is found in the Gnostics. — 
For the rest, it must not be denied that the 
difference in character between the Apocalypse 
and the other writings of John is considerable 
enough to allow the view, that it does not 
proceed from the same author, to appear not 
unjustified. While that difference, on the one 
side, is often not sufficiently estimated, on the 
other side, with the object of bringing it more 
clearly out, the mistake is not infrequently 
made, of not keeping strictly enough within 
the truth. 
origin of the Apocalypse also, the Gospel and 


But, as may hold good of the 


the First Epistle of John are too strongly 
attested, both by their whole character and 
by the external evidences, as writings of the 
Apostle John, to allow their genuineness to 
be denied on account of the Apocalypse. 

1 Against this fact the strange remark of 
Bede in the Prologus super septem epistolas 
canonicas (printed in Care’s Script. Eccles. 
Hist. Liter.): ‘Multi seriptorum ecclesiasti- 
corum, in quibus est 8. Athanasius, primam 
ejus (i.e., Joannis) epistolam scriptam ad 
Parthos esse testantur,’’ cannot of course 
be regarded as of any weight. 


462 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


of John (Baumgarten-Crusius), and still less that it “refers to its designa- 
tion for Farther and Central Asia, as formerly Persian lands” (Guericke 
as above, p. 487). It might no doubt be possible that Augustin thereby 
expressed his own conjecture (Michaelis), but then he would hardly have 
proceeded with the Epistle under this designation without further remark. 
Perhaps a mistake is at the bottom of it. Some critics assume a corruption 
of the reading in Augustin. Serrarius conjectures as the original reading: 
ad Pathmios; Wetstein: ad sparsos: Semler: adpertius. Most explain the 
words as originating in a Greek expression; quite arbitrarily, Paulus 
(Heidelb. Jahrb., 1832, p. 1071) thinks that they might have arisen through 
misunderstanding of a probable inscription πρὸς πάντας ; it is more natural 
to have recourse, with most critics, to the Greek word παρθένος, and to 
regard ad Parthos as originating in πρὸς παρθένους. Whiston considers πρὸς 
παρθένους as the description of the yet uncorrupted, virgin condition of the 
churches of John; according to Hug’s view, the inscription of some 
manuscripts of the Second Epistle, πρὸς πάρθους (i.e., πρὸς παρθένους), was 
transferred to the First Epistle, because that designation was regarded as 
unsuitable to the Second Epistle, Gieseler (Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch., 4th 
ed., vol. i., Pt. 1, p. 139, note 1), with whom Liicke (3d ed., p. 52 f.) agrees, 
supposes that the inscription of the First and of the Second Epistle was: 
ἐπιστολὴ ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ παρθένου; this is certainly not found in any codex of the 
Epistle, but the inscription of the Apocalypse in Cod. Guelpherit. (30 of 
Griesb.) runs thus: τοῦ dyiov . . . ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ παρθένοι: ἠγαπημένου 
ἐπιστηθίου ᾿Ιωάννου θεολόγους. The simplest supposition might be that Augustin 
misunderstood the remark of Clemens Alex. (Opp., ed. Potter., Fragm. 
1011) that the Second Epistle was written πρὸς παρθένους (ad virgines) — 
(see Introd. to Second and Third Epistle, Sec. 1),— and then by mistake 
referred it to the First Epistle. — But whatever be the origin of this ad 
Parthos, it can be of no value as an historical evidence for the original place 
of destination of the Epistle. As John, according to the unquestionable 
accounts of antiquity, after the death of the Apostle Paul, took up his place 
in Asia Minor; and asin Asia Minor, as the Epistle to the Colossians 
testifies, heretical tendencies of Gnostic character already appeared at an 
early date,—it is to be assumed, with most critics, that the Epistle was 
originally directed to the churches of Asia Minor; not to one of them 
(according to Hug, to that of Ephesus), but as ἐπιστολὴ ἐγκυκλικῆ (Ocec.) to 
several (perhaps to “John’s Ephesian circle of churches,” Liicke), perhaps 
to all of those to which the personal activity of the apostle extended, for "Ὁ 
the Epistle would otherwise certainly touch at individual circumstances of 


INTRODUCTION. i 463 


the single church.1 It is clearly quite arbitrary to regard as its place 
of destination, with Benson, Palestine, or, with Lightfoot, Corinth. 
2. The Place of Composition. — This is just as little stated in the 
Epistle as the place of destination ; the prevailing opinion, that John wrote 
it in Ephesus, has at least nothing against it. Hug and Ebrard, who 
regard it—though without tenable reason —as a companion work of the 
Gospel, suppose that it was written with the latter in Patmos; but even 
though the statement is found in some of the later Fathers, that the Gospel 
was written in Patmos, the more ancient tradition names Ephesus as its 
place of composition ; comp. Meyer’s Comment. on the Gospel, 3d ed., p. 39. 
— Hug appeals also to 2 John 12 and 18, 3 John 13: unwarrantably, how- 
ever, for a want of writing materials is here in no way hinted at. 
8. The Time of Composition.— That the Epistle belongs not to the 
* earlier, but to the later apostolic time, i.e., the time after the departure of 
the Apostle Paul, is not to be disputed. The whole tone in which it is 
written leaves us in no mistake as to the advanced age of the writer; 
moreover, the somewhat prolonged existence of the Christian churches to 
which it is addressed is brought out pretty clearly; and there is the 
additional fact that the antagonism between Jewish and Gentile Christi- 
anity is no longer the subject, and that the Docetism therein opposed points 
also to the later time. With this corresponds the tradition, according to 
which it was written by John during his sojourn in Ephesus. As, however, 
the tradition states indeed the- end (Iren., Haer., iii. 3, 4, in Euseb. iv. 14: 
᾿Ιωάννου δὲ παραμείναντος αὐτοῖς μέχρι τοὺ Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων), but not the beginning 
of this sojourn, the time of composition of the Epistle is only indefinitely 
fixed by it. This much only seems to be indisputable, that John first 
settled in Ephesus after the death of the Apostle Paul, in order from there 
to direct the churches of Asia Minor, especially those in the proconsulate ; 
against which, the view that he remained in that city until the destruction 
of Jerusalem (Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, VII. p. 202 ff.) lacks any 
certain ground. The composition of the Epistle before the destruction of 
Jerusalem, Grotius, Hammond, and Diisterdieck infer from chap. 11. 18; 
Ziegler, Fritzsche, and others, from the circumstance that that event, so 
important for Christianity, is not mentioned in the Epistle. But ii. 18 
refers, indeed, to the nearness of the parousia of Christ, not, however, to 


1 Hilgenfeld thinks that the Epistle was even if the apostle mentions no specific limit 
addressed to the whole of orthodox Christen- of his sphere of readers, such a limit is 
dom, in so far as it did not belong to the nevertheless indicated in the warning refer- 
immediate sphere of the apostle’s labors; but ence to the Docetan heresy. 

- 


464 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


the fall of Jerusalem; that even later the time reaching to the parousia of 
Christ was considered as the “last time,” is shown by the passage in Jgnat. 
Ep. ad Ephes. ¢c. Xi. : ἔσχατοι καιροὶ λοιπὸν αἰσχυνθῶμεν, φοβηθῶμεν τὴν μακροθυμίαν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα μὴ ἡμῖν εἰς κρίμα γένητα. And that the destruction of Jerusalem 
is not mentioned, might be explained in this way, that when the Epistle was 
written a considerable time might have already elapsed since that event, 
Most commentators place the composition in the time after the destruction 
of Jerusalem, especially because, as they think, the state of the churches 
brought out in the Epistle was such as was appropriate only to the end 
of the apostolic age. But even this conclusion is at least not quite sure, 
since even already Paul in his later Epistles had to take notice of moral 
indifferentism, nay, Antinomianism and Gnostic error; and the disturbing 
influence of the Judaistically-inclined Christians on the Gentile-Christian 
churches must be regarded as already overcome by the labors of the Apostle - 
Paul, inasmuch as even Paul himself does not combat it in his later Epistles 
in the way in which he had done in the earlier ones. — Thiersch appeals, 
in favor of a comparatively late appearance of the Epistle, to this, that 
according to chap. ii. 19, “the separation of the heretics from the Christian 
community was already accomplished,” though they: still, according to the 
Epistle of Jude, revelled at the Agapae; but on the one hand, it is to be 
observed that from the former passage it is not clear how far a formal 
separation was at that time already carried out (the church-forming activity 
of the heretics belongs first to the second: century); and, on the other 
hand, it is at least uncertain whether John and Jude had to do with 
heretics of the same kind, for the one class are depicted as Antinomians, 
the other as Docetans. — Ebrard fixes as the time of composition the year 
95 aer. Dion. His reasons for this are: the Epistle was written at the same 
time as the Gospel, as its dedicatory epistle; the Gospel was composed at 
Patmos; John was at Patmos in the 1éth year of Domitian. But these 
premises lack any certain foundation. — By most critics it is considered 
that the Epistle was written later than the Gospel, and that the latter was 
written after the destruction of Jerusalem. As regards the first part, 
appeal is made in its favor especially to this, that in the Epistle reference 
is sometimes made to the Gospel. This, however, is not the case; there is 
(as Bleek, as above, also remarks) in the whole Epistle not a single passage 


1 Still it cannot remain unobserved, that the end of the apostolic age; and that the 
the heretics, against whom Paul directs his heretical error which the Ignatian Epistles 
polemic, are never accused of Docetism; that contend against was of specially Docetan 
Cerinthus probably appeared only towards character. 


INTRODUCTION. 465 


which assumes the written Gospel as known! (Guericke). It would seem 
on the face of it more probable that John, induced by the false teachers, 
first wrote the Epistle to warn and exhort the churches intrusted to him, 
and then wrote the Gospel for entire Christendom, as “a consecrated record 
of the historical foundation of salvation” (Thiersch), than that he first 
wrote the latter and then the former.? Some of the very passages by which 
it is thought the dependence of the Epistle upon the Gospel can be proved 
seem to tell in favor of this. The passage, 1 John i. 1-4, appears, when 
compared with Gospel i. 1 ff., to be not the later, but the earlier one, since 
the apostle in the former is still striving to give to the idea the suitable 


expression, whereas in the latter he has already found it. None the less, 


compared with the expression ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, is the expression ᾿Ιησοὺς 
Χριστὸς ἐν σαρκὶ. ἐληλυθώς the more indefinite, and therefore no doubt the 
earlier. Besides, the affinity of the two works permits the conjecture that 
the dates of their composition do not lie far from one another (comp. Bleek, 
p- 590; differently Brickner), especially as this appears not only in their 
peculiar character, but also in the form, to such an extent that not only 
do they both begin with a prooemium containing the same ideas, but even 
the thoughts expressed at the close completely correspond with each other: 
Gospel of John xx. 31: ταῦτα dé γέγραπται, iva πιστεύσητε, ὅτι "Inaoig ἐστιν ὁ 
Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ iva πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, and 
1 John v. 13: ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, ἵνα εἰδῆτε, ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχετε οἱ πιστεύοντες εἰς 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ viod τοῦ Θεοῦ. ---- AS regards the second point, no exact proof can 
indeed be drawn from the Gospel itself in favor of its composition after 
the destruction of Jerusalem ; 8 but, on the other hand, there lies in this no 
ground to contradict the old tradition, that John wrote it in his more 
advanced age. It is also not improbable that it was not already circulated 


in the lifetime of the apostle; at least, it is more natural to suppose that the 


1 Reuss (as above, p. 218) rightly says: 
“For us the Epistle requires the Gospel as a 
commentary; but as it once had this in the 
oral instruction of its author it is not thereby 
proved that it is the later.” 

2 What Thiersch (Versuch f. d. Kritik, 
p- 79) says generally: ‘‘ As a general rule, the 
proposition may be proved to be historically 
true, that the writings of momentary design, 
to which most of the Epistles belong, appeared 
earlier, and the writings of permanent design, 
especially the Gospels, later,’”»— may also be 


applied to the relation of the Gospel and the 
Epistle of John. 

3 From the use of ἣν in the passages of the 
Gospel of John xi. 18, xviii. 1, xix. 41, nothing 
can be inferred, as it is entirely explained ‘ by 
the context of historical narrative;’’? on the 
other hand, however, the ἐστί, John y. 2, does 
not prove that Jerusalem was not yet destroyed 
at the time when John wrote this, for John in 
his account of the past event might represent to 
himself that which no longer existed as still 
existing (comp. Ebrard, Comment, p. 40 ff.). 


406 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


21st chapter was added to it immediately on its appearance than later, 
when it had already become a possession of the Christian churches.1 In 
that case, John composed the Gospel as a legacy for the age after his death; 
hence, however, it would result as to the Epistle, that it also was written only 
in the advanced age of the apostle, although before the Gospel. True, the 
apostle nowhere says that his readers have heard the gospel from him, though 
he often speaks of their acquaintance with it, nor is there any passage 
from which it could be proved that he himself already labored among them 
in person; but from this the conclusion cannot be drawn, that “John 
composed the Epistle when he took up his place in Asia Minor after the 
death of the Apostle Paul, and indeed in order, by means of it as a pastoral 
Epistle, to introduce his labors there” (1st ed. of this comment.); for, on 
the one hand, such a purpose of the Epistle is nowhere hinted at; and, on 
the other hand, that circumstance might arise from this, that the Epistle 
was not exclusively destined for those churches in which the apostle had 
already labored by oral preaching, but was equally for others which he had 
not yet visited. On impartial consideration of all points, it appears probable 
that the Epistle of John was written in the last quarter of the apostolic age. 


1 Ewald (Gesch. Israels, vii. p. 217 ff.) 
thinks that the Gospel was written about the 
year 80, but was first circulated later, shortly 
before the death of John, with the supple- 
mentary chap. xxi. added by him; and that 
the First Epistle was written later than the 
Gospel, though independently of it, but was 


circulated earlier than it, immediately after 
its composition. For this, however, there is 
quite as little certain proof as there is for the 
opinion that both the Gospel and the Epistle 
of John were composed only at the special 


urgency of his friends. 


CHAP. I. 467 


> , > ‘ , 
Ἰωάννου ἐπιστολὴ a. 


In A, B, the superscription runs: ᾿Ιωάννου (B: -avov) a; im other codd., 
ἐπιστολὴ ᾿Ιωάννου πρώτη. The Rec. is ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ 
πρώτη. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. Instead of ἑωράκαμεν, Tisch. 7 has, both here and hereafter, and iii. 6, 
iv. 20, accepted the form éop.; on this form, see Ph. Buttmann, Ausf. griech. 
Gramm., 1819, ὃ 84, Anm. 11, note; Al. Buttmann (p. 56) says: ‘‘The form 
éopaxa, it is true, is often presented by the MSS., but has not, up to the present, 
been received by the editors.”»— Ver. 2. Cod. B has, before ἑωρακαμεν, the 
relative 6, perhaps, through mistake, from vv. 1 and 3; even Buttm. has not 
accepted it.— Ver. 3. dmayyéAdouev ὑμῖν]. Rec., according to G, K, and several 
others, Copt. and others, Oec., Aug., Beda (Tisch.); according to A, B, C, 
however, with Lachm., a καὶ is to be inserted after dmayyéAAouev, — it seems to 
have been omitted as superfluous on account of the following iva καὶ ὑμεῖς: in 
Thph., it reads: καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν; so also δὲ, in which it reads: dy. καὶ 
ἑωράκ. καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν. -- Ver. 4. Instead of γράφομεν ἡμῖν (Rec., Tisch., Lachm., 
ed, maj.), A¥, B, δὲ read γράφομεν ἡμεὶς (Lachm., ed. min., Buttm.); Liicke, De 
Wette, Ewald, and Reiche consider this reading as unsuitable; differently 
Briickner; the change of ἡμεὶς to ὑμὶν can, at any rate, be more easily explained 
than that of ὑμὶν to ἡμεὶς. ----ἦ χαρὰ ὑμῶν]. Rec., according to A, C, K, several 
others, Copt., ete. (Tisch.); Lachm., following B, G, 8, and others, reads ἡμῶν; 
hardly correct. — Ver. 5. καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη, according to B, C, G, K, δὰ, and others, 
Syr., Thph., Oec. (Tisch.), instead of the Rec., καὶ αὕτη ἐστίν, according to A, 
Vulg. (Lach.).. The Ree. is an alteration of the original reading; comp. ii. 25, 
iii. 11. — ἀγγελία], so Lachm. and Tisch. (approved of by Reiche and most modern 
commentators), following almost the entire number of authorities, A, B, G, K, 
by far the most of the others (Thph. in Comm. Oec.), instead of the Rec., 
ἐπαγγελία, which only a few codices support; perhaps C; according to Lachm., C 
has ἀγγελία; according to Tisch., ἐπαγγελίας. Paulus considers ἀγγελία as an 
explanatory gloss from iii. 11; so De Wette; but, on the contrary, ἐπαγγελία is a 
correction of ἀγγελία, which, otherwise, does not appear in the N. T., except in 
iii. 11, where, however, the same correction is found. The original reading of 
N is ἀπαγγελίας; later it corrects this to ἀγγελία: others have corrected it to ἀγάπη 
τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. Socin thinks that ἐπαγγελία should be read. — Ver. 7. Instead of 
ἀλλήλων, A* (?), Tol., some lat. codices, Aeth., Clem., Didym., Tert. read αὐτοῦ, 
which is plainly a correction, as ἀλλήλων does not seem conformable to the train 
of thought; see the comment. on this passage. After Ἰησοῦ, the Rec., following 
A, G, K, and others, Vulg., etc., has Χριστοῦ, which is wanting in B, Ὁ, &; 


408 _ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; Reiche would have it retained; the addition 
is easily explained, comp. v. 8. — Ver. 8. Instead of οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν (Rec., after 
B, G, &, Vulg., etc.), Lachm. and Tisch., following A, C, K, and others, read 
ἐν ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν; perhaps the former is a correction, after ver. 10.— Ver. 9. 
Instead of καθαρίσῃ is found, in A, h., some min. (perhaps also in C**), καθαρίσει, 
which, however, has too little evidence to be regarded as genuine. 


Vy. 1-4. Introduction of the Epistle: Statement of the subject of the 
apostolic proclamation and of the aim of this writing. The construction 
of the periods is not carried out conformably to rule. The relative clauses 
beginning with 6 form the object of a verbal idea, which is just as little 
directly expressed as the subject which belongs to it; nay, more, with zepi 
the period that was begun breaks off, and with καὶ ἡ ζωὴ (which refers back 
to the preceding τῆς ζωῆς) begins a new period consisting of two principal 
members. In the new sentence, ver. 3, the object, expressed in relative 
form, is placed before the finite verb, which contains in itself the subject. 
The parts of the sentence in ver. 1, beginning with 6, are co-ordinate with 
each other; it is grammatically impossible to take the first part as subject, 
and the following parts as the predicate of it.1 As far as regards the sense, 
it is unsuitable to find in ἐψηλάφησαν the verb which governs the preceding 
objective clauses (Paulus: “that which was, etc., which we have seen, our 
hands also have touched”). The governing verb cannot be contained in 
ver. 2 either, for the verbs of this verse have their object near them in τὴν 
ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. AS 6 ἑωράκαμεν x, ἀκηκόαμεν, ver. 8, Shows itself to be the 
resumption of the objective clauses of ver. 1,— only in more abridged form, 
—it is to be assumed that ἀπαγγέλλομεν, ver. 3, is the verb which was before 
the apostle’s mind from the very beginning, from the immediate addition of 
which he was, however, prevented by feeling himself constrained to define 
the object more precisely by the appositional addition περὶ τοὺ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. 
As he was then induced by τῆς ζωῆς to the parenthetical continuation in 
ver. 2, he made the finite verb follow after he had first resumed the object. 

Ver. 1. ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς]. This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully 
explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which 
was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of 
-perception by the apostle’s senses. But from the appositional adjunct περὶ, 
x,7.4., and the parenthetical sentence, ver. 2, it follows that John understands 
by it the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς or the ζωῇ, and more exactly the ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, which 
was with the Father and was manifested. That the apostle, however, does 
not thereby mean a mere abstraction, but a real personality, is clear, first 
from ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, x.7.2., and ἐφανερώθη, and then especially from the comparison 
with the prooemium of the Gospel of John, with which what is said here is 
in such conformity that it cannot be doubted that by ὃ ἣν am’ ἀρχῆς the same 
subject is meant as is there spoken of as ὁ λόγος. The neuter form does 
not entitle us to understand by ὃ ἦν, «.7.4., with the Greek commentators 
Theophylact, Oecumenius, and the Scholiasts, the “μυστήριον of God;” 


1 Cappellus: ‘* Quod erat ab initio hoc ipsum est, quod audivimus,”’ etc. 


CHAP. I. 1. 469 
namely, ὅτι Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἔν σαρκί, or even, with Grotius, the “res a Deo 
destinatae.” Nor does De Wette’s interpretation, “that which appeared in 
Christ, which was from eternity, the eternal divine life,” correspond with 
the representation of the apostle, according to which the ζω not only was 
manifested in Christ, but is Christ Himself. By far the greatest number of 
commentators interpret ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς correctly of the personal Christ. The 
reason why John did not write ὅς (comp. chap. ii. 13: τὸν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς), but 4, 
cannot, with several commentators (Erdmann, Liicke, Ebrard?), be found 
in this, that John means not only the person in itself, but, at the same time, 
its whole history, all that it did and experienced, for ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῇς (Synonymous 
with ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν, Gospel of John i. 1) is decisive as to the historical 
manifestation of Christ. Nor is it, with Diisterdieck, to be found in this, 
“ because only this form (the neuter) is wide and flexible enough to bear, at 
the same time, the two conceptions of the one . . . object, the conception 
of the pre-mundane existence and that of the historical manifestation,” for 
then each of the four é’s would have to embrace in itself both these ideas, 
which, however, is not the case. But neither is it, with Hofmann (Schrifl- 
beweis, ed. 2, I. p. 112), this: “ because John just wants to describe only the 
subject of the apostolic proclamation as suck ;” for this is not the order, 
that John first describes the subject of the apostolic proclamation only 
generally, and “then” defines it more particularly, but ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς is itself 
the more particular definition of the subject of the proclamation. Nor, 
finally, is it, with Weiss, this, that the apostle does not here mean the Son 
of God Himself, but “that which constituted the eternal being of the Son,” 
namely, life; for, on the one hand, nothing here points to a distinction of 
the Son and His being, and, on the other hand, it is not the being of the 
Son which the apostle heard, saw, handled, but the Son Himself. The 
neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that, to the apostle, Christ is 
“the life” itself; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea 2 


1 Liicke gives this explanation of the 
neuter: that John, ‘‘ seeking to express briefly 
the idea of the Gospel, combines in this idea 
the person of Christ, as the incarnate Logos, 
with His whole history and work.” — Erdmann 
first remarks: ‘‘ Forma neutrius generis gene- 
ralis notio e contextis atque Joannis dicendi 
ratione facile definienda, ad personam Christi 
aperte referenda significatur, nec solum vis et 
amplitudo sententiae apte notatur, sed etiam 
illo o quater repetito orationis sublimitati 
concinnitas additur;’’? and then continues: 
**Praeterea meminerimus, non solum Christi 
personam per se spectatam hic designari, 
verum etiam omnia, quae per vitam humanam 
ab eo perfecta et profecta, acta, dicta, etc., 
λόγον in eo apparuisse comprobant. — With 
this the opinion of Ebrard agrees, that 6 shows 
that the person was not to be proclaimed gua 
person, not as an abstraction, but in its his- 
torical manifestation. Against this, however, 
it is a valid objection, that John in ὃ ἣν an’ 


ἀρχῆς has plainly in his view the Logos not 
in, but before, its historical manifestation. — 
When Erdmann appeals, in favor of John’s 
reference of the neuter to persons, to the 
passages, Gospel of John iii. 6, vi. 39, xvii. 2, 
1 John iv. 4, it is, on the other hand, to be 
observed that in all these passages the neuter 
serves to combine the single individuals into a 
whole that embraces the entirety of them, 
which permits of no application to the use of 
ὃ here. 

2 Ebrard rejects this explanation as quite 
erroneous, and as being in contradiction with 
the acceptation of the verse otherwise. The 
rashness of this judgment is clearly evident 
from the question which he adds: ‘* Where 
would there be even the shadow of a gram- 
matical reference of 6 to Gwys?” for a 
grammatical reference is not and could not 
be asserted. —Bertheau’s objection (Liicke, 
Comment., ed. 3, p. 206 f.), that “we would 
still have to regard the neuter form as a 


470 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


True, the apostle could have written even ὅς instead of the neuter; but as 
Christ has His peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself 
(not merely a living individual), — comp. Gospel of John xiv. 6, —and as 
John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for 
him to write here 6 than ὅς. By jv ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, John describes Christ as Him 
who, although at a particular time He was the object of perception by sense, 
has been from all eternity; the imperfect ἣν, however, does not express the 
pre-mundane, eternal existence, but is explained in this way, that John 
speaks historically, looking backwards from the point of time at which 
Christ had become the object of sensuous perception. — ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς has 
frequently in the N. T. its more particular determination along with it, as 
in Mark xiii. 19, 2 Pet. ili. 4: τῆς κτίσεως, or it is easily discovered from the 
context, as in Acts xxvi.4. In the passage 2 Thess. ii. 13, ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς 
corresponds to the expression used in Eph. i. 4: πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, and is 
identical with the German von Ewigkeit her (from all eternity), for which 
elsewhere is said: ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων (Eph. 111. 9), or similar words. Here it is 
explained by the following ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν πατέραᾳ. This existence of Christ 
with the Father precedes not merely His appearance in the flesh, but also 
the creation of the world, for according to John i. 2, the world was made by 
Him; ἀρχῇ is therefore not the moment of the beginning of the world, as it 
is frequently interpreted, but what preceded it (comp. Meyer on Gospel of 
John i. 1); Christ was before the world was, and is therefore not first from 
the beginning of the world, as Christ Himself in John xvii. 5 speaks of a 
δόξα which He had with the Father πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον eivar.2 The apostle 
says here az’ ἀρχῆς, because he is looking back from the time when Christ by 
His incarnation became the object of sensuous perception (similarly Ebrard). 
It is incorrect either to change the idea of εἰναι dx’ ἀρχῆς into that of exist- 
ence in the pre-determined plan,* by which the words are strained, or to 
interpret ἀρχῇ here of the beginning of the public activity of Christ in the 
flesh (Semler, Paulus, and others), by which the connection with ver. 2 is 
ignored. — ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, «.7.2.]. By the four sentences the apostle expresses 
the thought that that which was from the beginning was the subject of his 
own perception; the main purpose of them is not “to put forward that 
which is to be proclaimed about Christ as absolutely certain and self- 
experienced (Ebrard), but to bring out and to establish the identity of that 
which was from the beginuing with that which was manifested in the flesh, 
while he has at the saine time in his view the Docetan heresy afterwards 


general comprehensive expression which re- 2 That the λόγος before the creation of the 


fers both to that to which the apostle ascribes 
a primeval existence and to that which he has 
heard with his ears,’’ etc., is not tenable, for it 
rests on the unproved assumption that ὃ λόγος 
τ. ὦ. is not identical with that which the apostle 
regarded as the object of the ἀκούειν, x.7.A. 

1 It is unsuitable to explain the o, with 
Braune, in this way, that the apostle, “in 
view of the mysterious sublimity, . . . wrote 
in a flight and feeling of indetiniteness.” 


world was immanent in God, but by the ac- 
complishment of the act of creation hypo- 
statically proceeded from God (see Meyer on 
Gospel of John i. 1), is an idea nowhere 
hinted at in Scripture. 

8 Grotius: ‘‘ Eae res, quas apostoli sensibus 
suis percepere, fuerunt a Deo destynatae jam 
ab ipso mundi primordio.” 


CHAP. I. 1. 471 


mentioned by him.1 By the 6 with which these sentences begin, nothing 
else, therefore, is meant than by the 6 of the first sentence, namely, Christ 
Himself (Briickner, Braune); and here the peculiar paradox is to be 
noticed, which lies in this, that the general (7 ζωή) is represented by the 
apostle as something perceived by his senses. It is erroneous to understand 
by each of these 6’s something’ different; thus by the first (with ἀκηκόαμεν), 
perhaps the testimony which was expressed by God Himself (Grotius), or 
by the law and the prophets (Oecumenius),’or by John the Baptist (Nicolas 
de Lyra), or even the words which Christ uttered (Ebrard); by the second 6 
(with ἑωράκαμεν), the miracles of Christ (Ebrard); by the third 6 (with 
ἐθεασάμεθα), tot et tanta miracula (Grotius), or even “the divine glory of Christ” 
(Ebrard); and by the ὅ which is to be supplied with ἐψηλάφησαν, the resur- 
rection-body of Christ (Ebrard), or, still more arbitrarily, the panes mullti- 
plicatos, Lazarum, ete. (Grotius); all these supplementary ideas, which 
have originated in the incorrect assumption that John refers here to “the 
various sides of Christ’s appearance in the flesh,” and which can easily be 
confounded with others, are utterly unjustified, since they are in no way 
hinted at in the context. John does not mean here to say that he has 
experienced this or that in Christ, but that he has heard, seen, looked upon, 
and handled Christ Himself. In the succession of the four verbs there lies 
an unmistakable gradation (a Lapide: gradatim crescit oratio) ; from ἀκηκόα- 
μὲν to ἑωράκαμεν a climax occurs, in so far as we are more certainly and 
immediately convinced of the reality of an appearance of sense by sight than 
by hearing; the addition of the words τοὶς ὀφθαλμοὶς ἡμῶν is not, as Lorinus 
already remarks, a περισσολογία or Barrodoyia, but there is in them “ plainly an 
aiming at emphasis, as, to see with one’s own eyes” (Winer, p. 564 [E. T., 
6077). The third verb ἐθεασάμεθα must not here be taken — with Bede and 
Ebrard —in the sense of spiritual beholding, by which it is removed from 
the sphere to which the other verbs belong; it is rather of similar significa- 
tion with ἑωράκαμεν ---- in this respect, that, equally with the latter, it indi- 
cates the seeing with the bodily eyes. The difference does not, however, lie 
in this, that θεᾶσθαι = μετὰ θαύματος καὶ θάμβους ὁρᾶν (Oecumenius, a Lapide, 
Hornejus, etc.), or = attente cum gaudio et admiratione conspicere (Black- 
well), by which significations are put into the word which are foreign to it 
in itself, but in this, that it has in it the suggestion of intention.? It is to be 
remarked that ἐθεασάμεθα is closely connected with the following καὶ ai χεῖρες 
ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν ; for 6 is not repeated here, and both verbs are in the aorist, 
so that they thns go to form a sort of contrast to the two preceding clauses; 
whilst ἀκούειν and ἐρᾷν express rather the involuntary perception, θεᾶσθαι and 


1 Erdmann: ‘Jam etiam clarum fit, cur 
tam diserte ... testem oculatum et auritum 
se significare studeat, scilicet primum ut veri- 
tatem et certitudivem verbi aeterni in Christo 
manifestati sensibu*que humanis percepti ad- 
versus coutrariam |seudodoctorum doctrinam 

- confirmet, deirde ut sui praeconii apos- 
tolici fidem et auctoritatem in ipsa sensuum 


experientia fundatam ab insolentia illorum 
vindicet.” 

2 This force Liicke brings out correctly: 
‘‘Where the expressions are used as con. 
trasted, ὁρᾷν signifies altogether the objective 
seeing, but θεᾶσθαι the designed, continued 
beholding.” 


. 


472 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

ψηλαφεῖν express acts of voluntary design, —the former the purposed behold- 
ing, the latter the purposed touching of the object in order to convince 
one’s self of its reality and of its nature. As both these parts of the clause 
remind us of the words of the risen Christ: ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε (Luke 
xxiv. 39), it is not improbable that John had in his mind the beholding and 
touching of the Risen One, only it must be maintained at the same time 
that Christ was one and the same to him before and after His resurrection. 
In this view, the transition from the perfect to the aorist is naturally 
explained in this way, that the apostle in the last verbs refers to single 
definite acts.1 The plural ἀκηκόαμεν, «.7.2., is not plur. majestaticus, but is 
used because John, although he speaks of himself as subject, still at the 
same time embraces in his consciousness the other apostles as having had 
the same experience as himself. — περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is not dependent on 
any of the preceding verbs ;? it is also inadmissible to explain περί here, 
with Briickner, in the sense in which it is used in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 12, namely, 
in order to mark the transition to something new; not only the sense, but 
also the position of περί, prohibits this signification ; it is an additional clause 
in apposition to the preceding descriptions of the object, by which it is 
stated to what ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκοαμεν refers. The expression ὁ λόγος τῆς 
ζωῆς may be in itself a description of the Gospel (so it is taken by Grotius, 
Semler, Frommann, Ewald, De Wette, Briickner, Diisterdieck, etc.), and τῆς 
ζωῆς either gen. obj. (1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. v. 19), or gen. qualitatis (Phil. ii. 
16; Gospel of John vi. 68): but this acceptation is refuted, first, by the 
preposition περί, instead of which the simple accusative would have had to 
be put, for John proclaimed not about the gospel, but the gospel itself 
(ἀπαγγέλλομεν, ver. 3); then by the close connection of this additional clause 
with the preceding objective clauses; and, finally by the analogy with the 
prooemium of the Gospel of John (ver. 1: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ λόγος; ver. 4: ἐν αὑτῷ 
ζωὴ hv). These reasons, which are opposed to that explanation, are in favor 
of the explanation of Hornejus: hic non denotatur sermo s. verbum evangelii, 
sed Christus, which is also that of most commentators. The opinion of 
Duisterdieck, that “‘as John (according to ver. 2) considered the Logos itself 
as Con, ἣ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, the λόγος in the composition ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς cannot again 
be the personal Logos,” is overthrown by this, that τῆς ζωῆς in itself is not 
the name of a person, but of a thing, just as in Gospel of John i. 4, Gof in 


1 Diisterdieck rightly remarks that the 
change of the tenses does not here originate 
jn an indefiniteness. His view, however, 
‘‘that the transition from the perfect to the 
aorist is to be explained in this way, that 
the nearer the apostle’s discourse comes to 
the definite historical force of ἐφανερώθη, the 
more it takes the historical form,” is unten- 
able, for ἀκούειν and ὁρᾷν stand to ἐφανερώθη 
in no other relation than θεᾶσθαι and ψηλαφεῖν. 
Briickner opposes the view indicated above, 
being of opinion that the perfect emphasizes 
“16 certain effect,’ the aorist, on the other 
hand, ‘the historical event;’? but why would 


John there emphasize the former and here 
the latter, if this were not to be explained by the 
distinction which we have stated? 

2 §. G. Lange construes περὶ with the first 
sentence: ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, 80 that the sense 
that results to him, explaining am’ ἀρχῆς = 
‘*from the beginning of His ministry,” and 
εἶναι = ** fleri, to happen,” is: ‘* that which 
happened from the beginning in connection 
with our Lord, the Word of life’?! — Not less 
extraordinary is the explanation of Paulus: 
‘what in general was thus in regard to the 
Logos; what we, in regard to Him, heard, 
saw, etc., that also, in regard to Him, these 


CHAP. I. 1. 473 
the clause ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν, and τὸ φῶς τ. ἀνθρ. in the clause καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἣν τὸ φῶς τ. 
ἀνθρ. Even ὁ λόγος is the name of a thing; not, indeed, that we should 
understand by it, first, “the word, which was preached by the: apostles,” 
and then, because this has Christ as its subject, “Christ Himself,” as 
Hofmann (Schrifibew., ed. 2, I. p. 109 ff.) thinks, for the subject of a word 
cannot be called the Word (comp. Meyer on Gospel of John i. 1) 1 but ὁ 
λόγος signifies, in the province of religious thought, κατ᾽ ἐξοχῆν, the Word by 
which God expressed Himself ἐν ἀρχῇ. Though John of course knows that 
this Word is the personal Christ, yet in this expression in itself the idea of 
personality is not yet brought out. This being the case, we will have to 
understand the compound phrase, ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, first of all as the name of a 
thing :? so that John in this description, which in itself does not express 
the idea of personality, does not mean to say that that which was from the 
beginning, and which he has heard, etc., is the person that bears the name 
ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, but only defines more particularly the object, previously 
stated indefinitely, in so far that it is the Word of life, i.e., the Word which 
has life in it (whose nature consists in this, that it is life), and is the source 
of all life (Braune) ; comp. John vi. 35, viii. 12. In agreement with this, 
Weiss says (p. 35) that ὁ λόγος is here, as in the prologue of the Gospel, a 
description of the nature of the Son of God; but the assertion is incorrect, 
that the genitive τῆς ζωῆς describes the Word as “ the Word belonging to life, 
necessary for life,” in favor of which he appeals incorrectly to the ex- 
pressions ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (John vi. 35, 48) and ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου (John vi. 68). 
This explanation is refuted by this, that with it ἡ ζωῇ, ver. 2, must be taken 
in a different reference from that which τῆς ζωῆς has here.2— The personality 
of this Word, which has already been indicated by ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, x.7.2., is still 
more definitely expressed in ver. 2 by the twofold ἐφανερώθη, in which ὃ 
ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν of ver. 3 finds its explanation. That in the expression 
ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς the emphasis lies on τῆς ζωῆς, is clear from this, that in ver. 2 


hands of ours have touched,’’ namely, “the 
human body which here contained Him as 
the Logos come down from above.”’ 

1 The identification of the ideas: κήρυγμα 
(= λόγος) and ὁ κηρυσσόμενος, by which, 
without enlargement, the former could be put 
where the latter is meant, is rightly opposed 
by Luthardt (Das £v. Joh., p. 284 ff.); and 
what Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of his Schrift- 
beweis, brings forward for his defence, does 
not refute the statements of Luthardt. But 
even the explanation of Luthardt, that Christ 
is called the Word because He “‘is the Word 
which God-has spoken to the world, because 
He is the final and last word of all earlier 
words of God to the world,” cannot be justi- 
fied, because, on the one hand, in the simple 
expression λόγος nothing is less indicated than 
that He is the fina/ word, and, on the other 
hand, it must be acknowledged that Christ, 
not merely from His incarnation, but from the 


very beginning, is the Word in which life is, 
or the Word of Life. 

2 Even Hofmann has rightly recognized 
this, although only from his inadmissible in- 
terpretation of the idea 6 Adyos: ** As ὁ λόγος 
is the word of the apostolic proclamation, 
© λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is also not meant to be 
the proper name of a personal being, but the 
description of a thing, which requires the 
genitival attributive τῆς ζωῆς in order to be 
described according to its peculiar essence.” 

8 This incongruity is concealed by Weiss in 
this way, that he takes ζωή = “ knowledge of 
God;” but it is not thereby removed, for 
Weiss understands by ζωῆς here “ owr knowl- 
edge of God,” but by ἡ ζωή in ver. 2, on the 
other hand, the knowledge of God which the 
Logos has.—It is arbitrary for Ewald to 
explain λόγος by ‘‘ subject,” and, accordingly, 
περι τοῦ Ady. τῆς ζωῆς by ‘in regard to the 
subject of life.” 


414 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN 

it is not ὁ λόγος, but ἡ Gw7, that is the subject. The construction with περί 
is thus explained, that the apostle does not thereby mean to speak of the 
object of his proclamation, which he has already stated in ὃ ἣν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, κ.τ.1.» 
but only desires to add a more particular description of it, for which reason 
also it is not to be regarded as dependent on ἀπαγγέλλομεν. Braune incor- 
rectly takes it as‘a new dependent clause parallel in its matter to the 
succession of relative clauses, which along with the latter comes to an end 
in drayyéAdouev.”” Ebrard groundlessly finds in this construction the sug- 
gestion, that John considers as the object of his proclamation, not Christ 
“as an abstract single conception '(!), but “his concrete historical experi- 
ences of Christ.” 

Ver. 2. Without bringing to an end the thought begun in ver. 1, from 
the exact continuation of which he has already digressed in περὶ roi λόγου τ. &, 
the apostle in this verse expresses the double thought, that the life was 
manifested, and that this eternal life which was with the Father and 
was manifested, has been seen and is declared by him; so that in this, both 
ὃ ἣν am’ ἀρχῆς aud 6 ἀκηκοαμεν, how the former, namely, could have been the 
subject of sensuous perception, find their more particular determination. 
This whole verse is of course parenthetical; but that it is not regarded by 
John as mere parenthesis (contrary to Diisterdieck) is clear, partly from the 
connecting καί, and partly from this, that in ver. 3 it is not ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀργῆς, but 
only ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, «.7.2., that is resumed, while the former is fully dealt with 
in this verse. — καὶ is not put for yap, but is copulative, “ not disjunctive, 
but conjunctive" (Lucke); the thought with which it is connected is that 
which lies in ὃ ἣν az’ ἀρχῆς, that the life, before it became subject of percep- 
tion, was, as it is afterwards put, πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. ---- ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη]. Instead 
of a relative, the noun is repeated, as is peculiar to the diction of John; 
ἡ Gon instead of ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, because the emphasis, as has been already 
remarked, is on (wy, is analogous to Gospel of John i. 4, where also, after it 
is said of the λογος, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν, it is not ὁ Aoyor, but ἡ ζωη, that is the subject 
of the following sentence.? It is plainly incorrect to understand by ζωή the 
doctrina de felicitate nova = evangelium (Semler), or, with others, the felicitas 
of believers; but neither is 5. G. Lange’s explanation, according to which 
Gun = “auctor vitae, the Life-giver,” sufficient, for Christ is so designated 
not merely according to the operation that proceeds from Him, but, at the 
same time, according to the peculiarity of His nature.?—éoavepodn. In 


! Ebrard wrongly conceives the logical commentators. Frommann mentions as such: 


relation thus, that by «a: the thought that is 
latent in the preceding verse, ‘‘that Christ 
was of eternal being, but became incarnate 
and was manifested,” is confirmed. 

2 Groundlessly Baumgarten-Crusius asserts 
that ζωή ** has here more inner, spiritual mean- 
ing than in Gospel i. 14;” this is to mistake 
the meaning which the word has in that 
passage. 

8 The chief elements which are contained 
in the idea ζωὴ are differently stated by the 


‘¢ the truth, perfection, or the living and happy 
character of being;”’ K6stlin: ‘the mighti- 
ness, blessedness, and endlessness of being.” 
If we keep to the scriptural mode of concep- 
tion, the chief elements appear to be * con- 
sciousness, activity, and happiness;” true 
activity is only where consciousness is, aud 
happiness is activity which is not disturbed or 
hindered by any opposition. — Weiss wrongly 
infers from John xvii. 3, that by ¢w7 is to be 
understood only the knowledge of God, and 


CHAP, I. 2. 475 
what way the φανέρωσις took place, is taught in chap. iv. 2 and John i. 14. 
In this way, that the life which was in itself hidden appeared in the flesh or 
became flesh, did it become perceptible by sense, subject of the ἀκούειν, cpuv, 
«.7.A, Ebrard rightly remarks: “The σὰρξ γίγνεσθαι indicates the objective 
event of the incarnation as such; the φανερωθῆναι, the result of it for our 
faculty of perception.” — καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ, x.7.4.]. The object that belongs 
to the verbs is τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ; according to De Wette, Briickner, and 
Diisterdieck, this object is only attracted to ἀπαγγέλλομεν, and the object is to 
be supplied to both of the first verbs from what precedes (ζω) ; but the two 
ideas μαρτυροῦμεν and ἀπαγγ- are thereby unduly separated from each other ; 
there is more in favor of supplying only an αὐτὴν with ἑωράκαμεν (1st ed. of 
this comm., Myrberg), by which the idea of this verb is significantly brought 
out: “the life was manifested, and we have seen it; but as in the context 
even this construction is not indicated, it is better, with most commentators, 
to connect τὴν ζωὴν τ. αἰών. also with ἑωράκαμεν. ---- By ἑωράκαμεν the apostle 
brings out that the eternal Life which was made manifest and perceptible 
was seen by himself; the verb μαρτυροῦμεν, which signifies the utterance of 
that which one has personally seen or experienced (comp. Gospel of John 
xix. 35; also 1 John i. 34, ili. 32),! is directly connected with this, and 
thereupon first follows the more general idea ἀπαγγέλλομεν ; Baumgarten- 
Crusius incorrectly refers μαρτυροῦμεν specially to ἐφανερωθη, and ἀπαγγέλλομεν 
to ἑωράκαμεν, with the assertion that “the former two have more objective, 
the latter more subjective meaning.”? By ὑμιν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν is put in refer- 
ence to the readers of the Epistle; hence it does not follow, however, that 
it is to be understood only of the writing of this Epistle, and is therefore 
simply resumed by ταῦτα γράφομεν in ver. 4; but the former is the more general 
idea, in which the more special one of the writing of the Epistle is embraced ; 
the γράφειν is a particular kind of the ἀπαγγελλειν.8 Ebrard incorrectly sepa- 
rates the two by referring ἀπαγγέλλομεν to the written Gospel of John, and 
yoaoouev to this Epistle. — τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον]. The noun is here put for the 
pronoun αὑτήν, not only in accordance with John’s usual mode of expression, 
but because the idea of Gu was to be more particularly defined by αἰώνιος. 
Baumgarten-Crusius erroneously explains ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος by “ bestowing 
higher, unending life ;” rather the ζωή, which Christ is, is marked by αἰώνιος 
as such as jv ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, or, still more comprehensively, as such as, though by 


it is erroneous for him to maintain that ἡ gw ἀ.6., testes Dei tum voce, tum vita, tum pas- 


does not here signify Christ Himself, but ‘‘ His 
peculiar knowledge of God,” which He pos. 
sessed even before His davepwars. The relative 
clause ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, which is con- 
nected with τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, is opposed 
to this interpretation; inasmuch as it shows 
that here ἡ ζωη ἡ αιῶνιος, and just as much ἢ 
¢wn, is to be considered as the same subject 
which John in the prooemium of the Gospel 
calls ὁ λόγος, and of which he says there that 
it ἦν προς Tov Θεον. 

1 Incorrectly, a Lapide. ‘Quasi martyres, 


sione, morte et martyrio.” 

2 Myrberg’s explanation also: ‘ μαρτυρία 
est expertae veritatis simplex confessio, qua 
homo sibi ipsi potius, quam aliis consulat: 
αἀπαγγελια annuntiatio veritatis cognitae, qua 
aliis polius, quam sibi ipsi providere studeat,” 
is without grammatical justification. 

8 Bengel’s interpretation: ‘‘ Testimonium, 
genus; species duae: unnuntiatio et scriptio; 
annuntiatio ponit fundamentum, scriptio su- 
peraedificat,” is inadmissible. 


476 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

the incarnation it entered into time, is in itself nevertheless without meas- 
ure of time, eternal (Briickner; similarly Braune). It is true, the idea ζωὴ 
αἰώνιος has elsewhere in the N. T. admittedly another signification, but this 
does not justify the explanation of Calvin: ubi secundo repetit: annuntiamus 
vitam aeternam, non dubito quin de effectu loquatur, nempe quod annuntiet: bene- 
ficio Christi partam nobis esse vitam. De Wette’s explanation also, that ἡ ζωὴ 
ἡ αἰώνιος is an idea “ which hovers in the middle between the eternal true 
life which is to be appropriated by believers (John xvii. 3), and life in 
Christ, so that the first is to be considered in closest connection with 
ἀπαγγέλλομεν, but the second in reference to the reflexive ἥτις ἦν; can so much 
the less be held correct as the simple and clear thought of the apostle is 
thereby rendered complicated and obscure. Of that which the believer 
possesses in Christ there is here no mention at all, but only of Christ Him- 
self; and, besides, that ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰών. is to the Apostle John not merely a 
subjective, but also an objective conception, is proved by chap. v. 11.— 
ἥτις ἣν]. ἧτις is more significant than the simple #, inasmuch as it makes the 
twofold relative clause as containing a confirmation of the preceding state- 
ment: ἑωράκαμεν, k.7.A., τὴν ζωὴν τὴν aidviov.1 — The imperfect ἣν also does not 
here indicate the intemporal existence, but is used in reference to ἐφανερώθη : 
ere the ζω, appeared, it was with the Father. — πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ; comp. Gos- 
pel of John i. 1: πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. The preposition πρός is often combined with 
the accusative in the N. T. in the sense of “with:” comp. Matt. xiii. 56, 
xxvi. 55; but πρός with the accusative differs from πρός with the dative in 
this, that it describes being with one another not as a mere being beside one 
another, but as a living connection, a being in intercourse with one another 
(so also Braune) ; but we put too much into it, if we find the relationship 
of love directly expressed by zpéc.2, John does not mean to bring out that the 
ζωῇ (Christ) was connected with the Father in love, but that Christ already 
was, before He appeared (ἐφανερώθη); before He was ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ with men, 
He was therefore in heaven with God, and, indeed, in lively union with 
God as he afterwards entered into a lively communion with men. Quite 
erroneously, Socin, Grotius, and others understand the expression of the 


1 The statement of Ebrard is inapposite, 
that by ἥτις the subject-matter of the relative 
clause is stated as an already (from ver. 1) 
known and at the same time acknowledged 
element of the substantive idea on which the 
relative clause depends. The right view seems 
to lie at the base of the explanation of Sander: 
“1 declare unto you eternal life, even as such 
as,” etc.; at least, itis not touched at by the 
remark of Ebrard in opposition: ‘‘ The mean- 
ing of John is plainly this, that the ¢. αἰών. is 
really and in itself one which was with the 
Father and was manifested to us, and is by no 
means represented as such merely in the 
proclamation of it.’ Diisterdieck rightly 
says: “ΒΥ ἥτις the twofold extension of the 
predicate is connected with the subject ἡ ¢. ἡ 


aidv., not merely in simply relative manner, 
but in such a way that the extension of the 
predicate contains at the same time an explan- 
atory and confirmatory reference;” but it is 
difficult to admit that by virtue of ἥτις the και 
ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν in its close connection with 
ἣν mp. τ. πατ. is marked as the connecting link 
which unites to ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ apx. the accessory 
elements ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, K.T.A. 

2 Besser: ‘The Word was with God, re- 
lated to the Father in jilia/ love.’’ Still less 
justifiable is Ebrard’s explanation: ‘* The ζωή 
was a life flowing forth indeed from the bosom 
of the Father, but immediately returning to it, 
floating in the*inner circulation of the life of 
God” (!). 


CHAP. 1. 8. ATT 


concealment of the ζωὴ αἰών. in the decree of God. From the fact that John 
here calls God in His relation to Christ πατήρ, it follows that the sonship of 
Christ to God is to be regarded not as first begun with His incarnation, but 
as pre-mundane. — καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν is not a mere repetition of what has been 
already said, but in ἡμὶν a new element is added; by which ἑωράκαμεν and 6 
ἀκηκόαμεν, k.7.A., ver. 1, find their explanation. 

Ver. 3. In the opening words of this verse, 6... ἀκηκόαμεν, the object 
expressed in ver. 1 is resumed, and the governing verb, which was there 
already in the apostle’s view, is added. The drift of this verse does not, 
however, lie in this, but rather in the final clause: iva, «7.4. While John 
first meant to state what was the subject of his proclamation, namely, that 
it was that which was from the beginning and was perceived by his senses, 
—which he tken more particularly defined in ver. 2,—he now wants to 
state the purpose of this proclamation of that subject. In this lies the 
reason why the object is resumed in abridged form, namely, in the form 
which the immediately preceding words (καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν) suggested. The 
ὃ ἦν an’ ἀρχῆς, and similarly the ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, was not to be resumed; the 
former, because it has been fully dealt with in what follows it; the latter, 
because it was not here in the purpose of the apostle once more to bring out 
the reality of the sensuous appearance of Him who was from the beginning. 
That ἑωράκαμεν is placed before ἀκηκόαμεν, in which no artificial parallelism is 
to be sought for (against Ebrard), resulted naturally from the interweaving 
of ἑωράκαμεν into ver. 2 (De Wette). —dnayyéddouev καὶ ὑμῖν ; with ἀπαγγέλ- 
λομεν, comp. ver. 2. — καί (see the critical remarks) distinguishes the readers 
either from others to whom the apostle had declared the same thing 
(Spener, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, 
Branne, etc.), or from John (along with the other apostles). Lorinus: vos 
qui nimirum non audistis, nee vidistis, nec manibus vestris contrectastis verbum 
vitae; so also Zwingli, Bullinger, Ebrard. The latter interpretation would 
be preferable, if the following καί before ὑμεῖς, to which the same reference 
is to be attributed, did not thereby become pleonastic. — iva καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν 
ἔχητε μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν!. Many commentators, as Socin, Bengel, Russmeyer, Spener, 
and others, supply with κοινωνίαν as enlargement: “ with God and Christ; ” 
without adequate ground; the enlargement of the idea κοινωνία is μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν 
(Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Braune), whereby, however, John does 
not mean “the apostles and other Christians” (De Wette), but himself, 
although including the other apostles, who have also seen and heard the 
Word of Life. This κοινωνία is self-evidently the fellowship of spirit in 
faith and love, which was brought about by the apostolic preaching. — éyew 
is neither to be explained, with a Lapide, by pergere et in ca (κοινωνία) profi- 
cere et confirmari, nor, with Fritzsche, by “to acquire;” the word is rather to 
be retained in the signification peculiar to it; the apostle simply indicates 
the having fellowship as the aim of the apostolic proclamation, quite apart 
from the question as to how the hearers of this are related to that. —«ai ἡ 
κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα, x.7.2.]. By ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα Most commentators under- 
stand “the fellowship which the apostles and the believing hearers of their 
proclamation have with one another,” and, according as 7 or ἐστί is supplied, 


478 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


have thus defined the thought of -the verse, that the apostle states of this 
mutual fellowship that it either should be or is a fellowship with the Father 
aud the Son. But as this view necessitates a scarcely justifiable enlarge- 
ment of the idea κοινωνία (4 κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα ἢ [or ἐστί] κοινωνία μετὰ τ. πατρ., 
k.7.A.),/ the explanation οἱ Baumgarten-Crusius, who resolves 7 κοιν. 4 ἡμετέρα 
into ἡμεὶς ἔχομεν κοινωνίαν μετὰ τ, πατρ.. deserves the preference (so also Ewald, 
Braune); taking this explanation, the κοινωνία meant here is not identical 
with that mentioned before, inasmuch as the distinction is marked both by 
the difference of the subject, ὑμεὶς and ἡμεὶς (which is contained in ἡμετέρα), 
and that of the object, wet’ ἡμῶν and μετὰ τοῦ πατρός. According to this accep- 
tation, the apostle here brings out that he (along with the rest of the apos- 
tles) has fellowship with the Father and with the Son, and, no doubt, in 
order to intimate by this that his readers, if they have fellowship with him, 
are thereby received with him into that fellowship. It is at all events 
incorrect, with Augustin, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Ebrard, etc., to supply ἡ 
with this sentence. In opposition to it are: (1) the structure of the sen- 
tence, for if it were dependent on iva, the verb could not be omitted ;? and 
(2) the thought, for as the apostles are already in fellowship with the 
Father and with the Son, it cannot be the aim of their ἀπαγγελία to elevate 
the fellowship which exists between them, and those who accept their word, 
into fellowship with the Father and with the Son. ‘Therefore it is ἐστί that 
must be supplied, as Erasmus, a Lapide, Vatablus, Hornejus, De Wette, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald, Braune, etc., have 
rightly recognized. The conjunction καὶ... δέ, which is pretty often found 
in the N. T., is used when the idea which is connected with a preceding one 
is at the same time to be contrasted with it; “the introduction of something 
new is thereby intimated” (Pape, see on καὶ... δέ). Whether it be the 
connection or the contrast which is to be the more emphasized, this particle 
is never used to resume an idea with the view to a further expression of it. 
This usage therefore also proves that by 4 κοιν. 7 ἡμετέρα it is not the previ- 
ously mentioned κοινωνία μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, but another fellowship, namely, the fel- 
lowship of the jueic, i.e., of John and the other apostles (not with one another, 
but) with the Father and with the Son, that is meant.? God is here called 


1 This enlargement is involuntarily made 
by the commentators —although they do not 
mention it; thus by Liicke, when he explains: 
‘that ye may have fellowship with us: but 
(not with us only, but— ye know) our fellow- 
ship with one another is also that with the 
Father and with the Son;” similarly by 
Diisterdieck; Ebrard also says: “It is the 
purpose of John in his ἀπαγγελία, that his 
readers may enter into fellowship with the 
disciples, and that this fellowship may have 
its life-principle in the /fedlowship with the 
Father and with the Son.” 

2 The omission of ἐστί very often occurs; 
on the other hand, ἢ is very seldom omitted in 
the N. T., only in 1 Cor. viii. 11 and 13 (still 


stronger is the ellipsis in Rom. iv. 16); thus 
even with Paul, who so frequently expresses 
only the outlines of the thought, the sub- 
junctive of the substantive verb is almost never 
omitted; how much less can it be held as 
emitted in a construction of periods otherwise 
quite conformable to rule, in the second part 
of the dependent clause! 

8 For the usage of kai... δέ, comp. 
Matt. xvi. 18; Mark iv. 36; Luke ii. 35; 
Acts iii. 24, xxii. 29; Heb. ix. 21; and in 
Gospel of John vi. 51, viii. 16, 17, xv. 27. 
Liicke wrongly says that the particle is used 
for the more exact definition, expansion, and 
strengthening of a preceding thought, and that 
there is contained in it an “αὐ the same time”’ 


CHAP. I. 4, ὅ. 479 
πατήρ in relation to τοῦ υἱοὺ αὐτοῦ. --- The full description-of Christ as τοῦ υἱοῦ 
αὐτοὺ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ serves to bring out the identity of that which was from 
the beginning with Him who became man. 

Ver. 4. After stating the subject and aim of his apostolic proclamation, 
the apostle intimates specially the aim of this Epistle. —«ai ταῦτα γράφομεν 
ὑμῖν. By καὶ, γράφομεν is made co-ordinate with ἀπαγγέλλομεν, the particular 
with the general, not the composition of the Epistle with that of the Gospel 
(Ebrard). ταῦτα refers neither merely to what precedes (Russmeyer, Sander), 
nor merely to what immediately follows (Socin), but to the whole Epistle 
(Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck). With γράφομεν ὑμῖν, comp. ii. 1, 12, ν. 15. 
The plural is used because John as an apostle writes in the consciousness 
that Ais written word is-in full agreement with the preaching of all the 
apostles; all the apostles, as it were, speak through him to the readers of 
the Epistle. — iva ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν 7 πεπληρωμένη. Comp. with this John xv. 11, 
xvii. 15. The aim of the Epistle is the πλῆρωσις of joy which it, as apostolic 
testimony to the salvation founded on the φανέρωσις of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος (ver. 2), 
was to produce in its readers. De Wette groundlessly thinks that the effect, 
namely, the perfected Christian frame of mind, is here put for the cause, 
namely, Christian perfection. It is rather very especially the perfect χαρά 
(not merely “the joy of conflict and victory,” Ebrard) that is the goal to 
which the apostle would lead his readers by this Epistle. With the reading 
ἡμῶν it is the χαρά of the apostles — first of all of John —that is the goal, 
and no doubt the joy which for them consists in this, that their word 
produces fruit in their hearers.!_ Incorrectly Ebrard: “ If ἡμῶν is right, then 
the apostle resumes the mutual ἡμετέρα : that our (common) joy may be 
full;” for, on the one hand, ἡμετέρα is not mutual (embracing the apostles 
and the readers), and, on the other, ἡμῶν would have to be referred to the 
ἡμεὶς that is contained in γράφομεν, but. not to the more remote ἡμετέρα. 

Ver. 5-chap. 11. 11. 

After the apostle has indicated the fulness of joy, which is in the 
fellowship with the Father and with the Son, as the aim of his Epistle, he 
brings out in what follows, from the point of view that God is φῶς (ver. 5), 
in opposition to moral indifferentism, the condition under which alone that 
fellowship can exist. 

Ver. 5. This verse contains no inference from what precedes (καὶ is 
not = igitur, Beza), but the thought that lays the foundation for what 
follows. —éaruw αὑτη ἡ ἀγγελία, “and this is the message ;” ἔστιν is here put — 


or “‘notonly ... but also.” It must also be 
held as erroneous when Diisterdieck says: 


of such a restriction (not so much... as 
rather), who does not feel that, if John wanted 


“John has just spoken of a ‘ fellowship 
with us:’ now he wants to expand ¢his idea 
further; therefore he continues: ‘and our 
fellowship’—the new explanatory thought, 
however, forms a certain antithesis to what 
was previously said: but our fellowship is not 
so much the fellowship with ws as rather that 
with the Father and with the Son.’’— Apart 
from the fact that καὶ . . . δὲ has not the force 


to express this thought, he would have had to 
write not ἡμετέρα, but ὑμέτερα, or rather- 
αὑτὴ δὲ κοινωνία ὃ 

1 Theophyl.: ἡμῶν γὰρ ὑμῖν κοινωνούντων 
πλείστην ἔχομεν τὴν χαρὰν ἡμῶν, ἣν τοῖς θερισ- 
ταῖς ὃ χαιρων σπορεὺς ἐν τῇ τοῦ μισθοῦ ἀπολήψει 
βραβεύσει, χαιρόντων καὶ τούτων OTL τῶν πονων 
αὐτῶν ἀπολανουσι. 


480 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN 


contrary to its usual position, comp. ii. 25, iii. 11, 23, iv. 3, ete. — before 
αὑτη “in order to mark the reality of the message” (Braune); αὕτη here — 
as elsewhere also—refers to what follows: ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς, «.7.4., by which the 
subject-matter of the message is stated. Calvin incorrectly, following 
the reading ἐπαγγελία : promissio, quam vobis afferimus, hoc secum trahit, vel hanc 
conditionem habet annexam. — The word ἀγγελία only here and iii. 11 (where, 
however, it is also not unopposed) ; frequently in the LXX., 2 Sam. iv. 4; 
Prov. xii. 26, xxv. 26, xxvi. 16; Isa. xxviii. 9; Jer. xlviii. 34. The reading 
ἐπαγγελία is more difficult with the meaning “ promise;” yet this may be 
justified in so far as every N. T. proclamation carries with it a promise. 
De Wette prefers this reading, but takes ἐπαγγελία, following the example of 
Oecumenius, a Lapide, Beza, Hornejus, etc., — contrary to the constant usus 
loquendi of the N. T.,—in the signification: “announcement” (Lange: 
‘ teaching”). — ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοὺ, “ from Him, that is, Christ.” Instead 
of ἀπό, it is more usual to have παρά, comp. John viii. 26, 40, xv. 15; Acts 
x. 22, xxviii. 22; 2 Tim. ii. 2. --- αὐτός in the Epistle, not always (Paulus, 
Baumgarten-Crusius) indeed, but mostly, refers to God, while ἐκεῖνος refers 
always to Christ; here it refers backwards to τοῦ υἱοῦ abtod'l. Xp. in ver. 3; 
Diisterdieck : “From Him, Christ, the Son of God manifested in the flesh 
(ver. 3), whom the apostle himself has heard (ver. 1 ff.), has he received 
the message about the Father.” In favor of the correctness of this 
explanation is also the following: ὅτε ὁ Θεός. --- καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμὶν]. 
ἀναγγέλλειν 18 my nonyeaas with ἀπαγγέλλειν, vv. 2 and 3, only that in ἀνα the 
idea “again” is containgd; Erasmus: quod jfilius annuntiavit a patre, hoc 
apostolus acceptum a filio RENUNCIAT.2 This dvayyéAAouev refers back with 
peculiar subtleness to the preceding ἀγγελία, and thus testifies to the 
correctness of that reading (Diisterdieck). The subject is, as in vv. 2 and 3, 
John and the rest of the apostles. To reduce their proclamation to the 
word which they heard from Christ Himself serves to confirm its truth ; 
comp. the combination of ἀκούειν and ἀπαγγελλειν in ver. 8. Ebrard wrongly 
interprets this ἀναγγελλομεν also of the proclamation of John which occurred 
in his Gospel, to which this Epistle is related as the concentrating develop- 
ment.4— ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς φὼς ἐστί]. φῶς is inappropriately translated by Luther : 
“qa light; ” the article weakens the thought; God is light, i.e., God’s nature 
is light = absolute holiness and truth (comp. chap. iv. 8; Gospel of John 


1 Spener: ‘* Promise; inasmuch as, in what 
follows, a promise is really involved. God is 
not only a light in Himself, but to believers 
He is also their light. And that is the prom- 
ise.” 


cording to which, on account of the conjunctio 
inter Deum et Christum (which Socinus, 
moreover, holds not as a conjunctio essentiae, 
but only as a conjunctio voluntatis et rerum 
aliarum omnium), by αὐτοῦ is here to be 


2 The use of this pronoun even where the 
reference is obscure is caused by this, that 
John does not think of the Father without 
the Son, or the Son without the Father; the 
thought therefore remains essentially the same, 
whether we refer it in the first instance to the 
Father or to the Son; notwithstanding, how- 
ever, the view of Socinus is unjustifiable, ac- 


understood equally God and Christ. 

3 Bengel: ‘‘ Quae in ore Christi fuit ἀγγελία, 
eam apostoli avayyeAAovor; nam ἀγγελίαν ab 
ipso acceptam reddunt et propagant.” 

4 According to Ewald, John is here quoting 
a definite utterance of Christ; possibly, but 
not necessarily. 


CHAP. I. θ. 481 
iv. 24).1 For the signification of the symbolical expression “light,” comp. 
especially Jas. i. 13, 17. — As God is φῶς in absolute sense, so also all light 
outside of Him is the radiation of His nature, as all love flows forth from 
Him whose nature is ἀγάπη; comp. chap. iv. 7 ff. — καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν 
οὐδεμία] The thought contained in the foregoing is emphasized by the 
negation of its opposite, which is here expressed in the strongest manner by 
οὐκ. . . οὐδεμία, in accordance with John’s diction (comp. chap. ii. 4, 18, 
etc.).—oxoria: antithesis of φῶς: sin and falsehood; the same antithesis is 
frequently in the N. T.; comp. Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 8 ff.; 1 Thess. v. 
4,5 In opposition to the general prevalent explanation given here, Weiss 
thus explains the sense of this verse: “God is light, i.e., He has become 
visible, capable of being known, namely, in Christ, who certainly proclaims 
this truth; there is no more any darkness in God at all, i e., no part of His 
nature remains any longer dark and unknown; He has (in Christ) become 
completely revealed.” This interpretation, to which Weiss is led by the 
erroneous supposition that the idea φῶς has, in the N. T., no ethical 
reference,” is refuted both by the form of expression, which exhibits φῶς 
(just as ἀγάπη, chap. iv. 8) as a description of the nature of God, and also ᾿ 
by the train of thought, in so far as the truth expressed here forms the» 
starting-point for all the following amplifications — which bear on the ethical 
relationship of Christians. Besides, the apostle would have insufficiently 
expressed the thought, as he would have left out the essential ἐν Χριστῷ, 
which Weiss unjustifiably inserts. John rightly puts the truth that God is 
light, as the chief subject-matter of the ἀγγελία of Christ, at the top of his 
development; for it forms the essential basis of Christianity, both in its 
objective and in its subjective subsistence; in it there lies, as well as 
judgment in regard to sin, so also salvation from sin by the incarnation and 
death of Christ, as well as necessity of repentance and faith, so also the 
moral exercise of the Christian life. 

Ver. 6. Inference from ver. 5. He alone has fellowship with God, who 
does not walk in darkness. — ἐὰν εἴπωμεν]. The same form of speech (ἐάν) is 
repeated from verse to verse (only with the exception of ii. 2) until chap. 
ii. 3; then appears the participle with the definite article: ὁ λέγων, ii. 4, vi. 
9; ὁ ἀγαπῶν, li. 10; ὁ μισῶν, ii. 11.— The use of the hypothetical particles, 
especially of ἐάν, is also found very often in the Gospel.? On the first person’ 


1 The fulness of the references contained in 
these words, Lorinus states in the following 
manner: ‘‘ Deus lux est, quia clarissime se 
ipsum percipit, omniaque in se ipso, utpote 
prima et ipsissima veritas; quia summe bonus, 
ac summa et ipsissima bonitas; fidelis absque 
ulla iniquitate, justus et rectus, quia fons om- 
nis lucis in aliis i. e. veritatis atque virtutis, 
non solum illustrans mentem, docensque quid 
agendum sit, verum etiam operans in nobis, ut 
agamus et sic radiis suis liberans mentem ab 
ignorantiae tenebris, purgans a pravitate 
voluntatem.’’ 

* The assertion that φῶς refers only to 


knowledge and not to the ethical state, is so 
much the more untenable, as Weiss himself 
describes this knowledge as “‘ the true knowl- 
edge of God, i.e., such that the entire spiritual 
life of man is absorbed in it, so that he is 
henceforth completely in God,” or ‘in which 
the object of cognition is received into the 
whole spiritual life of man in such a way that 
it becomes a force, inspiring and determining, 
or ruling, the latter in its totality.” But even 
such a cognition must certainly be regarded as 
an ethical act. 

3 ἐάν is used — as Winer says, p. 273 (E. T., 
291) — with the idea of an objective possibility, 


482 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

plural, Lorinus says: suam quoque in hac hypothesi personam conjugit, ut lenius 
ac facilius agat; better Liicke: “By the communicative and hypothetical 
form, the language gains, on the one hand, in refining delicacy, and, on the 
other, in more general reference and force; unsatisfactorily Ebrard: “The 
first person plural serves only to express the general ‘ we.’ ” — ὅτι κοινωνίαν 
ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. See ver. 3. Fellowship with God forms the innermost 
essence of all true Christian life. — καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν. Comp. Gospel 
of John viii. 12. ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατεῖν is not merely “not to know whither 
we are going” (Luther), but to live in darkness, i.e., in sin, as our element. 
According to Weiss, who denies to the σκότος, as well as to the contrasted 
φῶς, an ethical reference, it is = “to walk in the unenlightened state; ” but 
is not this just the very state in which the life is ruled by sin ?— Bengel, for 
more particular definition, rightly adds: actione interna et externa, quoque nos 
vertimus ; such a walking in darkness is all life whose principle is not the 
love of God.! — ψευδόμεθα καὶ of ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν: for, τίς κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς 
σκότος; (2 Cor. vi. 14). ψευδόμεθα expresses the moral objectionableness of 
such a contradiction between the deed and the word. — The negative clause 
is not a mere repetition of the same thought, but introduces along with it a 
new idea: ψευδόμεθα refers to εἴπωμεν ; οὐ ποιοῦμεν τ. ἀλ. refers back to ἐν τ, ox. 
περιπατῶμεν ; for ποιεῖν τὴν GA. is not merely = ἀληθεύειν (Eph. iv. 15), but 
signifies the practice of ἀλήθεια in word and deed ; comp. John iii. 21, where 
it is contrasted with φαῦλα πράσσειν, and is used expressly of ἔργα. In the 
common interpretation, according to which it is = agere candide, sincere 
(Cyprian, Theodorus, Socinus, Grotius, etc.), τὴν ἀλήθειαν does not receive its 
due force; by the article the idea is specified in its complete generality and 
objectivity: “the true,” i.e., that which corresponds to the nature and will of 
God (Briickner, Braune), although it must be admitted that the general idea 
is here used with special reference to the desirable conformity between word 
and deed ; emphasis is thereby given to the fact that in the case mentioned 
in ἐὰν, «.7.2., the alleged κοινωνία with God is practically denied. In De 
Wette’s explanation: “to do that which corresponds to the nature of Chris- 
tian fellowship,” a meaning is given to the expression which is neither 
indicated in the word nor in the train of thought. 

Ver. 7. This verse does not merely repeat in its antithetical form the 
preceding thought, but contains also — as is peculiar to John’s lively fertility 
of ideas—an expansion of it. —édv δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν is contrasted 
not only with the preceding (ἐὰν) ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, but also with ἐὼν 
εἴπωμεν, ὅτι κοιν, ἐχ. μετ᾿ αὐτοὺ (so also Ebrard), thus: “if we do not merely say 
that we have fellowship with God, and yet at the same. time walk in dark- 


i.e., when the particular event is to be repre- 
sented simply as objectively possible, and the 
speaker does not want to express his subjective 
view of it (whether he considers it probable, 
desirable, etc.). A Tertium non datur (Ebrard) 
is not contained in it. 

2 That in περιπατεῖν there is a reference to 
the outward manner of life, is self-evident, but 
that it only signifies this, as visible by the eyes 


of men, to the exclusion of the inner activity 
of life, is an unfounded assertion of Ebrard. 
The commentators rightly point out that this 
περιπατεῖν ἐν σκότει is different from ‘the 
failing and falling, through over-haste and 
weakness, in temptation and in conflict” 
(Gerlach); ‘it does not mean: still to have 
darkness in us” (Spener). 


CHAP. I. 7. 483 


ness, but if we really walk ἐν τῷ φωτί.᾽" — ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατεῖν is not “to strive 
after likeness to God” (Liicke), but so to walk that the light (by which, 
however, we are not, with Weiss, to understand only knowledge) is the 
element in which our light moves; this, however, is a life which does not 
consist in striving after likeness to God, but which has this already as its 
own, or which is an ἔχειν κοινωνίαν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ with Him who is light. This 
unity between walking in the light, and fellowship with God, is even more 
clearly brought out by the following words: ὡς αὑτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί]. ὡς, 
because it is the same element in which the true Christian walks, and in 
which God “lives and works” (Diisterdieck, Briickner), inasmuch as the 
Christian has become θείας κοινωνὸς φύσεως (2 Pet. i. 4). --- αὐτός refers back to 
αὐτοῦ, ver. 6, and is put for Θεός. The idea “that God is in the light,” is the 
same as this, “that God is light,” that which is the nature of God is also 
the element of His life; the expression used here is occasioned by the 
preceding ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατεῖν. Ebrard incorrectly explains: “God has 
chosen for His habitation the spheres of the sinless, holy, and pure life 
of the angels and those made perfect;” there is not the slightest hint at 
such a conception in the context. As Weiss denies to the expression φῶς 
an ethical reference, and explains ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατεῖν = “to walk in a 
state of right knowledge,” the clause ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί necessarily 
causes him a difficulty which he can only solve by the supposition “that an 
idea similar to that in 1 Tim. vi. 16 was before the apostle’s mind, and 
that he institutes a parallel between ‘the walk of the Christian in the 
light of true knowledge, and the dwelling of God in the brightness of His 
glory,” in which it is plainly ignored that the second ἐν τῷ φωτί must neces- 
sarily have the same meaning as the first ἐν τῷ φωτί. ---- ἐστι is contrasted with 
περιπατῶμεν ; the former is peculiar to God, the latter to men; the former 
(being) to Him who is eternal, the latter (walking) to him who is temporal. 
— κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων]. Several commentators wrongly deviate from 
the statement of the apostle, by interpreting as if “ wer’ αὐτοῦ" were used in- 
stead of yer’ ἀλλήλων, as indeed the reading of some is (see the critical notes) ; 
or by understanding, quite unsuitably, ἀλλήλων of God and men; so Calvin: 
quod dicit, societatem esse nobis mutuam, non simpliciter ad homines refertur, sed 
Deum in una parte, nos autem in altera; the same interpretation in Augustin, 
Beza, Socinus, Hornejus, Lange, Spener, Russmeyer, Ewald, etc. De Wette, 
it is true, interprets ἀλλήλων correctly, but supplies “ μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ,᾽ thus: “ we 
have fellowship one with another, namely, with God.” Against this explana- 
tion are: first, that then John would not have mentioned the very leading 
thought; and, secondly, that a tautological idea results from it (Liicke), for 
ἃ; περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί is only possible through the κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, nay, 
even is the necessary proof of it. The subject here is much rather the 
fellowship of Christians with one another (Bede, Lyranus, Grotius, Wolf, 
Bengel, Semler, Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Sander, Diisterdieck, 
Ebrard, Braune, Briickner, etc.), and indeed quite generally; not, as Bengel 
considers, so that the apostle and his readers (nos et vos) would be regarded 
as the two parts bound together. The brotherly fellowship of Christians 
with one another ἐν ἀγάπῃ presupposes therefore the walking in light, or in 


484 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


fellowship with God, of which it is the necessary consequence. — With such 
a walk a second element is, however, united, namely, καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ 
αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. ---- τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ is not a metonymical 
expression for “the consideration of His death” (Socinus, Episcopius, Gro- 
tius, etc.),1 but the blood which Jesus (thus spoken of here as incarnate) 
shed as an offering at his death; or, the bloody sacrificial death of the Lord 
(Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune).?— τοῦ υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ is “ not merely added as a 
name of honor,” but also not “to indicate the close connection between the 
cause of God and Christ,” as Baumgarten-Crusius says, but in order to bring 
out the identity of the crucified One with the Son of God (so also the incar- 
nation of the Son of God); compare chap. v. 6; at the same time, however, 
there lies in it an indication how the blood of Jesus can have the effect 
which the apostle attributes to it (so also Ebrard). —xadapifer ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης 
ἁμαρτίας may mean either the cleansing from guilt, i.e., the forgiveness of 
sins (Bede, Socinus, a Lapide, Calov, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann, 
Weiss, etc.), or cleansing from sin itself, its eradication (Liicke, Frommann, 
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Myrberg, Braune, Ewald, etc.), or, finally, both to- 
gether (Spener, Hornejus, Bengel, De Wette, Briickner). According to 
ver. 9, where ἀφιέναι τὰς ἀμαρτίας and καθαρίζειν ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας are placed 
together, and thus distinguished from one another, the second view must be 
regarded as the correct one,? as indeed the context also demands; for, as 
the fact that even the believer has still continually sin is in opposition to the 
exhortation to περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί, the apostle had to point out that sin 
is ever disappearing more and more, and how, so that the walk which is 
troubled by it may still be considered as a walk in light, and that in spite of 
sin, there may exist a fellowship with God, who is light. As περιπατεὶν ἐν τῷ 
φωτί is given as the condition (not as the means, which the blood of Christ 
is) of καθαρίζεσθαι, and as the subject here therefore is not the change, wrought 
by the blood of Christ, of man from a child of darkness into a child of 
light, but the growing transformation of him who has already become a 
child of light, the present καθαρίζει is not to be turned into the preterite, but 
is to be retained as the present; Spener: “He purifies us ever more and 
more until the final perfect purity.” Comp. Gospel of John xv. 2.4— ἀπὸ 


1 That the operation of the blood of Jesus 
on us is to be regarded as conditioned by 
faith, is evident; but there is no justification 
in this for paraphrasing τὸ αἷμα by “ faith in 
the blood.” 

2 It is unjustifiable for Myrberg to say: 
*Quum hie sanguis nominatur, de toto opere 
Christi Mediatoris, immo de toto Christo Deum 
nobis et nos Deo reconciliante ac opus divinum 
10 nobis operante cogitare debemus.’’ 


3 Against Erdmann’s assertion: ‘‘Quum , 


notio αἵματος J. Christi in 8. scriptis aeque ac 
mors ejus semper vim expiandi habeat atque 
idem quod ἱλασμός significet (ii. 2), etiam h. 1, 
expiatio ab apostolo designatur, qua sola fier1 
potest, ut peccata nobis condonentur,” 11 1s to 


be observed that in Scripture the vis expiandi 
only is by no means ascribed to the blood of 
Christ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 18. In opposition to 
the assertion of Weiss, that ‘‘ we cannot 
imagine how the blood of Christ should effect 
a deliverance from sin,” it may be stated 
that a forgiveness of sin which produces no 
deliverance from sin, is no true forgiveness; 
comp. Tit. ii. 14. Forgiveness is here to be 
associated with the thought only in so far as 
it is the necessary presupposition of that 
deliverance. 

4 In what this purifying efficacy of the 
αἷμα “Ἰησοῦ is founded, John does not here 
say; but from the fact that 1n ver. 9 the ἀφίεναι 
Tos ἁμαρτιας 18 pul before the καθαρίζειν, and 


CHAP. I. 8 485 
πάσης ἁμαρτίας, “ from every sin;” sins are regarded as the single dark spots 
which still continually trouble the Christian’s walk in light. The «ai which 
connects the two parts of the subordinate clause is explained by Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Beza, Lange, Semler, etc. = nam. Sander recognizes the 
grammatical incorrectness of this interpretation, but is of opinion that the 
second clause is to be taken as causal as the basis and condition of the first ; 
but even this is arbitrary. According to De Wette, “xai connects directly 
with the idea of fellowship the progressive and highest perfection of it;” 
but this view is founded on the incorrect assumption that the subject of the 
first clause is fellowship with God. Ebrard thinks that John in these two 
clauses together expresses the idea of κοινωνία with God, while he “analyzes 
it forthwith into its two elements: the fellowship of believers with one 
another, and the fellowship and participation in the divine vital power ;” 
but it is in the first place incorrect to describe the κοινωνία μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων as an 
element of the κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and in the second place the purifying 
efficacy of the blood of Jesus can much less be regarded as an element of it; 
besides, Ebrard has clearly been induced to add the word “ participation,” 
through the perception that the idea of fellowship is quite unsuitable to the 
second clause. While the κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ is manifestly pre-supposed 
before the περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί, these two clauses express rather the “double 
fruit of our walk in light, of our living fellowship with God, who is light” 
(Dusterdieck); but when John puts κοινωνία per’ ἀλλήλων first, he thereby 
indicates that it is the sphere within which the purifying power of the blood 
of Christ operates on each individual (Briickner, Braune). Besides, it may 
be observed that the second clause is intended to point out the progressive 
growth of Christian life, and cannot therefore suitably precede the first 
clause. 


Ver. 8. Purification from sin presupposes the existence of sin even in 
believers; the denial of this is self-deception. —édv εἴπωμεν ; as in ver. 6; 
thereby is meant not merely “the speech of the heart” (Spener), but the 
actual expression and assertion. — ὅτε ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν]. The view of 
Grotius,} that this refers to sinning before conversion, and that ἁμαρτία there- 
fore means the guilt of sin, is rightly rejected by Liicke, Sander, etc. — The 
question, especially of earlier commentators, whether ἁμαρτία is here original 
sin (or sinfulness, as Weiss still thinks) or actual sin (pece. actuale), desire 
(concupiscentia) or deed, is solved by the fact that the idea is considered 
quite generally by the apostle (so also Braune) — only, of course, with the 


Christ in chap. ii. 2 is described as ἱλασμός, it 
follows, that according to John the purifying 
power is associated with the blood of Christ in 
so far as it is the blood of atonement. Ebrard 
improperly separates the two elements from 
one another, ascribing to the death of Christ 
“the power of purifying our hearts from sin, 
because in Christ’s death sin is condemned; ” 
and, on the other hand, “‘ the power of making 
atonement and obtaining forgiveness, because 
in Christ’s death the debt was paid and mercy 


procured.”’»— When Frommann says, ‘ The 
power that purifies from sin does not exactly 
lie in the blood of Christ itself, but in the 
love of God, of which Christ in His bloody 
death is the most speaking token, and of the 
existence of which He supplies the most 


_unquestionable evidence,’’ this is clearly an 


inadmissible twisting of the apostle’s words. 
1 «*Tfabere peccatum, non est: nunc in pee- 
cato esse, sed ob peccatum reum posse fieri,”’ 


486 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

exception of the sin spoken of in chap. v. 16. The first person plural ἔχομεν 
is to be noticed in so far as the having sin is thereby represented as some- 
thing that is true of all Christians. The expression ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν describes 
in a quite general way the taint of sin; only of the absolutely pure, in whom 
no trace of sin exists, is it true that he ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχει ; the relation of this 
ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν to περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ σκότει (ver. 6), in which the will of man serves 
sin (or in which sin is the dominating principle of life), is therefore not that 
of contrast (say in this way, that ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν is a being tainted with sin, 
where no act of will takes place),! but is to be defined thus, that the latter 
(περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ σκότει) is a particular species of ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν. Even though 
as Christians, who are born of God, we have no longer sin in the sense that 
περιπ. ἐν τῷ σκότει is true of us, nevertheless we do not yet cease to have sin; 
if we deny this, if we maintain that we have no sin at all, then what John 
says in the following words is the case with us. ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν ; not = 
“we are mistaken,” which πλανώμεθα would mean ;? but, as Sander explains, 
“we mislead ourselves, take ourselves astray from salvation (or better, from 
truth) ;” by that assertion, which is a lie (not an unconscious mistake), the 
Christian (for the apostle is not here speaking of non-Christians) deceives 
himself about the truth, for which he leaves no room in himself. Braune 
rightly observes that ἑαυτὸν πλανᾶν emphasizes the self-activity, which the 
middle with its passive form leaves in the background. — καὶ ἢ ἀλήθεια ἐν ἡμῖν 
οὐκ ἔστιν is not a mere repetition of ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν, but adds to this another 
new element. —7 ἀλήθεια, as in ver. 6, is neither = studium veri (Grotius), 
nor = castior cognitio (Semler), nor even = uprightness, or truthfulness 
(Liicke in his 2d ed.), or, as De Wette explains, “the veracity of self- 
knowledge and self-examination ;”% but truth in its objective character 
(Liicke in his 1st ed., Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune). 
Baumgarten-Crusius rightly says: “ ἀλήθεια does not need to be taken in a 
subjective sense, the subjective lies in οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν." The expressions 
used here: éavr, πλανῶμεν and 7 GA, οὐκ. ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, are not milder (Sander) 
than the corresponding expressions in ver. 6: ψευδόμεθα and οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν, but stronger (Ebrard), since in éavr. 7A. the self-injury, and in ἡ 
ἀλῆθ. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν the negation of possession of the truth, are more sharply 
marked. 

Ver. 9. Nota mere antithesis of the previous verse, but an expansion of 
the thought; “ there follows as conclusion not merely this, that we are then 
true, but the incomparably greater and surprisingly glorious thought that 
God then proves Himself actually towards us as the True, as the πιστὸς καὶ 


᾿ 


1 Even Ebrard does not correctly state the 
relation of the two expressions to one another, 
when he says that “fin ἔχειν ἀμαρτίαν man is 
not in ἁμαρτία, but ἁμαρτία is in man,’’ for 
plainly he also who is in ἁμαρτία has this in 
himself. 

2 When Ebrard, in opposition to this, re- 
marks that it cannot be asserted ‘‘that the 
middle πλανᾶσθαν means ‘to be mistaken,’ 
and πλανᾶν ἑαυτόν, on the other hand, ‘to 


mislead one’s self,’” this is not at all to the 
point, since it is not said that πλανᾶσθαι" has 
always the meaning ‘‘to be mistaken,” but 
that the German ‘‘sich irren”’ [Engl. ‘to be 
mistaken” ] is expressed in Greek not by 
πλανᾶν ἑαυτόν, but by πλανᾶσθαι. 

8 Ewald’s explanation is also unsatisfactory: 
“Truth about this relation of things, and 
therefore easily about every other also.” 


CHAP. I. 9. 487 


δίκαιος " (Ebrard). — ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν]. ὁμολογεῖν does not mean 
to recognize (Socinus: confiteri significat interiorem ac profundam suorum | 
peccatorum agnitionem),} but to confess ; of course it is manifest that the 
confession is not here spoken of as a purely outward act; still, at the same 
time, it is not sufficient to regard it merely as “an inward fact, which is 
founded on the whole internal tendency of the mind” (Neander); it 
is rather the real (even if not always vocal) expression of sins recognized 
within and confessed to one’s self ; here also it is the word in which the inner 
life has to operate.2— What are to be confessed are ai ἁμαρτίαι ἡμῶν, i.e., the 
sins of Christians, which are the particular manifestations of ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν 
(so also Braune) ; therefore the plural. — Ebrard rightly calls attention to 
the fact that John here mentions, as the subject of the confession, not the 
abstract ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν, but τὰς ἁμαρτίας, i.e., the definite, concrete, single sins 
committed ; “the mere confession in the abstract that we have sin would 
not have truth without the acknowledgment of the concrete particular sins, 
but would shrivel up into a mere phrase.” — πιστός ἐστι καὶ δίκαιος]. It is true 
God is both in Himself, He does not become so only when we confess our 
sins; but this confession is the condition on which He actually proves 
Himself to us as πίστος καὶ dixatoc.4 These two epithets are indeed not of the 
same signification, but still, as their combination proves, of cognate meaning. 
God is called πιστός, inasmuch as He, as the promise-maker, also fulfils what 
He has promised, Heb. x. 23: πιστὸς ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος; Heb. xi. 11; especially 
as He accomplishes in believers the promise of blessing, which lies for them 
in the fact of their call, by conducting them through manifestation of His 
grace to the goal of their calling (according to Ewald, “inasmuch as He 
keeps His promise already repeatedly given in the O. T.”), 1 Cor. i. 9: πιστὸς 
ὁ Θεὸς, δι᾽ ob ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοὺ υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ; X. 13; 2 Cor. i. 18-21; 1 Thess. 
v.24: πιστὸς 6 καλῶν ὑμᾶς, ὃς καὶ ποιῆσει; 2 Thess. ili. 3. πιστός has this meaning. 
here also, as results from the following iva, «.7.4, Ebrard incorrectly calls 
the reference of the faithfulness of God here to His promises and prophecies 
an introduction of foreign ideas, and says “the subject here is faithfulness 
to the nature of truth and light, akin to His own nature, and which prevails 
in us, inasmuch as we confess our sins.” — God is described as δίκαιος in the 
N. T., inasmuch as He, for the realization of His kingdom of grace, gives 


1 Similarly ° Baumgarten -Crusius says: 
““ὀμολογεῖν is not exactly to confess, but to 
recognize, perceive, become conscious of, as 
opposed to the εἰπεῖν μὴ ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν; but 
it is just to εἰπεῖν that ὁμολογεῖν is exactly 
opposed only when it is taken in its natural 
signification. 

2 It is quite clear that confession to God is 
meant; when, however, Braune adds: ‘and 
indeed a confession so fervent and deep that it 
becomes public and regulated by the church,” 
he introduces an element which nothing here 
suggests. In genuine Catholic fashion a 
Lapide says: ‘Quam confessionem exigit 
Johannes? Haeretici solam generalem quae 


fit Deo admittunt; Catholici etiam specialem 
requirunt. Respondeo: Johannem utramque 
exigere, generalem pro peccatis levibus, 
specialem pro gravibus. 

8 Even here Socinus, Grotius (Si fatemur 
nos in gravibus peccatis vixisse ante notitiam 
evangelii), and others understand ἁμαρτίαι of 
sins before conversion. 

4 Semler’s interpretation is not satisfactory: 
**Logice intelligendum est; nec enim in Deo 
jam demum oritur nova ratio tanti praedicati, 
sed in his christianis succrescit nova cognitio 
tagte rei.” The subject is not our perception, 
but the actual manifestation of God. 


488 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

to every one — without προσωπυληψία ---- what is due to him, according to the 
righteous judgment of God, in proportion to the position which he occupies 
toward God (or toward the kingdom of God), God being in this regarded as 
the Judge. The idea of the righteousness of God and that of His judicial 
activity are very closely connected; God is ὁ δίκαιος κριτῆς, 2 Tim. iv. 8; He 
judges ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, Acts xvii. 31 (Rey. xix. 11), or δικαίως, 1 Pet. ii. 23; His 
κρίσις 15 a κρίσις δικαία, 2 Thess. i. 5. The relation of the δικαιοσύνη of God to 
His judicial activity is found throughout in the N. T., even where the 
former is the subject without the latter being expressly mentioned with it. 
As the manifestation of the δικαία κρίσις of God consists in the righteous 
‘distribution of punishment and of blessing, it follows that δικαιοσύνη is 
referred to not only where both of these are mentioned together (as in 
2 Thess. i. 5 seq.), but also where only one of the two is spoken of. God 
punishes as the δίκαιος, but He blesses also as the δίκαιος, no doubt in view of 
the realization of His kingdom, which depends upon the good obtaining the 
complete victory over the evil. Towards him who walks ἐν τῷ σκότει, God 
shows Himself δίκαιος in that He κατακρίνει him; towards him who walks ἐν 
τῷ φωτί, by ever more and more removing from him every thing that hinders 
his perfect κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ (namely, both his consciousness of guilt, and 
the ἀδικία which still clings to him), and by finally permitting him to inherit 
the perfect happiness which is prepared for those who love God (comp. 
2 Tim. iv. 8). Here God is called δίκαιος, inasmuch as His purpose is 
directed to allotting to those who, walking in light, confess their sins, that 
which is suitable for them, namely, the blessing mentioned in the following 
iva, x.7.A. The meaning of δίκαιος is rightly stated by Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Diisterdieck, Briickner, and Braune;! on the other hand, it is incorrect to 
refer δίκαιος here to the punitive activity (Drusius: justus, quia vere punivit 
peceata nostra in filio suo), but also to explain it = bonis, lenis, aequus 
(Grotius, Lange, Carpzoy, etc.), for δίκαιος never has this meaning in the 
N. T.; it is here of cognate meaning with mordc,? because the allotment of 
blessing bestowed in accordance with the δικαιοσύνη of God has been promised 
by Him, and is accomplished according to His promise; yet it must not 
therefore be regarded as synonymous with it (Hornejus: = in promissis 
servandis integer). Following Rom. iii. 26, some commentators have here 
interpreted it = δικαιῶν ; but this is so much the more unjustifiable, as that 
very passage by the juxtaposition of the two ideas proves their different 
meaning.? According to the Roman-Catholic view, πιστός refers to the 


1 Ewald’s explanation is unsatisfactory: 
according to which God is here called just, 
because He “knows well and considers that 
He alone is the Creator, whilst we are His 
creation exposed to error and sin, and acts 
according to this just consideration.” 

2 In the passage Rom. iii. 3-5, πίστις and 
δικαιοσύνη are also used as cognate ideas, but 
even here in such a way that δικαιοσύνη has 
not lost its reference to the judicial activity of 
God; Meyer on this passage explains δικαιο- 


σύνη, on account of the contrast with ἀδικέα, 
generally by ‘‘justice;” but the former refer- 
ence appears both in μὴ ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς ὃ ἐπιφέρων 
τὴν ὀργήν, and also in ver. 6 πῶς κρινεῖ ὁ Θεος 
τὸν κόσμον. 

3 Not less inexact is it for Ebrard to say: 
‘*God manifests Himself towards us as the 
δίκαιος, inasmuch as He is not only just, but 
also makes just,” since δικαιοῦν does not mean 
**to make just.” His assertion is also inap- 
propriate, that here and in Rom. i. 17 to ii. 26, 


CHAP. I. 9. 489 
peccata mortalia, δίκαιος to the peccata venialia.1 — iva ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας]. iva, 
not = “so that” (Castellio: ita justus, ut condonet), has here (as in other 
passages of the N. T.) not retained strictly its idea of purpose (hence not : 
“in order that”’), but it states what is the aim of the divine faithfulness 
and justice to attain which these qualities operate on men; Luther therefore 
translates correctly: “that.” De Wette’s explanation, with which Braune 
agrees, “in the divine faithfulness lies the law or the will of forgiving sins,” 
is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as ἀφιέναι, κ.τ.λ., is not merely the will, but the 
operation of the divine faithfulness and justice. — τὰς ἁμαρτίας refers back to 
ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, thus: “the sins confessed by us.” The remission, i.e., 
the forgiveness, of sins is therefore, by virtue of the faithfulness of God, the 
first result of the confession; the second, John describes by the words: καὶ 
καθαρίσῃ 5 ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας. Here the first thought is not repeated 
epexegetically (Semler), or only in figurative manner (Lange); but the 
words express the same thing as the corresponding words of the 7th verse, 
with which the 8th and 9th verses are in closest connection (Diisterdieck, 
Braune; Brickner does not explain himself definitely); καθαρίζειν has here 
the same meaning as there, and ἀδικία (not = poena peccati, Socinus) is 
synonymous with ἁμαρτία ; they are two different names for the same thing ; 
comp. chap. v. 17.2. The order in which the two clauses that express the 
redemptive operations of God are connected together (Myrberg: ordo 
verborum ponit remissionem ante abrogationem), points to the fact that 
purification takes place by means of forgiveness. —The context is quite 
decisive in favor of regarding as the subject of πιστός ἐστι, x.7.4., ποὺ Χριστός, 
but (with Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.) ὁ Θεός ; for even 
though in ver. 7 the καθαρίζειν is described as the operation of the αἰμα ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, and in chap. ii. 2, Ἰ. Xp. is the subject, yet in this section ὁ Θεός is 
the principal subject; ver. 5, ὁ Θεός ; ver. 6, αὐτός; even in ver. 7, τοῦ υἱοῦ 


“the justice of God appears as the source in 
Him from which His saving, sin-forgiving, and 
sin-overcoming action flows.” This source is 
rather God’s ἀγάπη manifesting itself as χάρις 
towards the guilt of men; there is a reference 
to that in chap. iii. 24 of the passage in 
Romans, but here the sowrce of the salvation 
is not mentioned. — The interpretation of 
Caloy: ‘ Justa est haec peccatorum remissio 
et ex justitia debita, sed Christo non nobis,” 
and that of Sander: ‘‘ The Lord is just, inas- 
much as He remits the sin of the sinner who 
appeals to the ransom paid in the blood of 
Christ, because it would be unjust to demand 
the payment twice,”’ introduce references into 
this passage which are foreign to it. 

1 Suarez: “Fidelis est Deus, cum condonat 
poenitentibus peceata mortalia; justus, cum 
justis condonat venialia, quia, sc. justi per 
opera (!) poeniteutiae, charitatis, ete., me- 
rentur de condigno hane condonationem.” 

2 The Rec. καθαρίσει corresponds to the 
passage Luke xxii. 30,:where, according to 


the best attested Rec., iva is followed both 
by the subjunctive first, and then by the in- 
dicative; but not to the passage John vi. 40, 
cited by Ebrard, where the indicative is not 
regarded as dependent on iva. On wa with 
the indicative, comp, A. Buttmann’s Gramm., 
p- 202 [Z. 7., 234]. Winer, p. 271 ff. [Z. T., 
289 f.]. 

3 While Weiss also interprets both ex- 
pressions of the forgiveness of sins, he tries 
to repel the reproach of tautology by saying: 
“Τῇ sin committed is regarded as a stain, it is 
quite correct that God forgives us the sin, and 
thus purifies us from all unrighteousness, since 
by the very fact that God forgives it, sin has 
ceased to exist before Him, and at the same 
time also to stain us;” true though this may 
be, however, it cannot serve to refute that 
objection, for as καθαρίζειν in this sense is not 
the result of ἀφίεναι, but the former consists 
in the latter, both clauses express only one 
and the same thought. 


400 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


αὐτοῦ; the blood of Christ, therefore, is regarded as the means by which 
God produces purification from sins. To hold, with Sander, that God and 
Christ together form the subject,! is quite as inappropriate here as in ver. 5 
to understand by αὐτοῦ both together. Though, with John, God and Jesus 
Christ approach very close to a unity, yet they are always distinguished by 
him, and never represented as one subject. 

Ver. 10. Not a repetition, but “a strengthening of ver. 8” (Baumgarten- 
Crusius). As ver. 8 is connected with the end of ver. 7, so is this verse 
with ver. 9.—édy εἴπωμεν as in ver. 8. -- ὅτε οὐχ ἡμαρτῆκαμεν is substantially 
synonymous with ὅτι duapr. οὐκ ἔχομεν, only distinguished from it in this way 
that the former describes an activity, the latter a state (so also Braune) ; 
the expression used here is called forth by the plural τὰς ἁμαρτίας and the 
idea ἡ ἀδικία (ver. 9), by which the sinful character is more definitely 
specified as an activity than by ἁμαρτία in ver. 7. The perfect does not 
prove that ἡμαρτήκαμεν is meant of sins before conversion (Socinus, Russmeyer, 
Paulus, etc.); the subject here, as in all the verses before, is the sinning of 
Christians; for to deny former sin could not occur to a Christian. The 
perfect is explained both by John’s usus loquendi, according to which an 
action lasting up to the present is often represented in this tense, and also 
by the fact that the confession every time refers to sins previously committed. 
— ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτὸν corresponds to ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν ; it brings out that the 
Christian by the denial of his sin accuses God (αὐτόν, i.e., τὸν Θεόν) of lying. 
In ποιεῖν there lies, as Diisterdieck remarks, a certain reproachful bitterness ; 
comp. John v. 18, viii. 53, x. 33, xix. 7,12. This thought presupposes the 
declaration of God that even the Christian sins, which ver. 9, πιστός ἐστι, 
k.7.A., also suggests; for if God has promised Christians forgiveness of their 
sins on condition of their confessing them, the above declaration is thereby 
made on God’s side. — καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ (1.€., τοῦ Θεοῦ) οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν]. ὁ λόγος; 
corresponding to the thought ἡ ἀλήθεια in ver. 8, refers directly to the 
preceding ψεύστην, x.7.4. Liicke explains it correctly: “the revelation of 
God, especially the gospel of Jesus Christ” (so also Briickner, Diisterdieck, 
Braune); to understand by it (with Oecumenius, Grotius, De Wette, etc.) 
especially the O. T., is forbidden by the train of thought, for the subject 
here is not the sinfulness of man in general, but the ἁμαρτάνειν of Christians.8 


1 In favor of conjoining Christ as the 
subject, Sander adduces the fact that just in 
the following chapter Christ is called δίκαιος ; 
but in this he overlooks altogether the differ- 
ent meanings which the word has in the two 
passages; for in the verse before us δίκαιος is 
used of a relation to men, but in chap. ii. 1 of 
the relation of Christ to the divine will; and 
when Sander further says that in Heb. ix. 14 
it is precisely stated of Christ that He purges 
the consciences, this is incorrect, since τὸ αἷμα 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ is the subject there just as here in 
ver. 7; and there even more expressly than 
here God is specified as the author of the 
purification, for the αἷμα τ. Xp. purges because 


it is offered as a sacrifice τῷ Θεῷ. Moreover, it 
is not meant by this that forgiveness and 
cleansing could not be ascribed to Christ quite 
as much as to God, only it does not follow 
from this that ὁ Χριστός is the subject here. 

2 Therefore it is also not correct to refer 
ἡμαρτήκ. to present and past, as Hornejus 
explains: ‘‘ Si dixerimus nos non tantum pec- 
catum nunc non habere, sed nec peccatores 
unquam fuisse.”’ 

3 This has been more or less overlooked by 
the commentators (even by Diisterdieck and 
Ebrard), although it is also important for the 
understanding of chap. ii. 1, 2. But John may 
with justice assume that the word of God 


. CHAP. I. 10. ) 491 
Ebrard interprets ὁ λύγος τ. ©. as the “self-proclamation of the nature of 
God, which has taken place both in the verbal revelations of the O. and 
N. T. and in the revelations of deeds,” so that even the λόγος of Gospel of 
John i. 1 is to be regarded as included; but from the fact that the elements 
. mentioned here are very closely connected, it does not follow that that idea 
has here, or anywhere else, this extensive signification. The words οὐκ ἔστιν 
ἐν ἡμῖν are erroneously explained by Baumgarten-Crusius: “we have given it 
up, or, also, we are not qualified or fit for it;” it means rather: “it is not 
vividly imprinted in our hearts” (Spener); it has remained external to us, 
inwardly unknown. 


denies the absolute sinlessness of Christians, παράκλησις is an essential element for be- 
since—apart from the fact that even the lievers, which presupposes their having and 
O. T. does not depict the δίκαιοι as perfectly doing sin. 

holy —in every evangelical announcement the 


492 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. : 


CHAPTER II. 


Ver. 2. Lachm., according to A, B, Vulg., has put ἐστε before ἱλασμός. 
Instead of μόνον, B has μόνων, which, no doubt, is only to be regarded as a 
mistake. — Ver. 3. The original reading of & is φυλάξωμεν, instead of τηρῶμεν: 
but it was afterwards corrected. — Ver. 4. A, B, δὰ, al., Clem., Thph., ete. 
(Lachm., min.; Tisch. 7), read ὅτε after λέγων: it is wanting in C, G, K, al. 
(Tisch. 2); Lachm., maj., has ὅτι in brackets. It is possible that ὅτι was, in 
later times, omitted as an interruption. δὲ. has, with ἡ ἀλήθεια, the addition: τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, ---- Ver. 6. οὕτως before περιπατεῖν (Rec. following C, K, &, al. pl., Copt., 
etc., Thph., ete., Tisch.) is uncertain; A, B, al., Vulg. (Lachm.), omit it; per- 
haps it was inserted to emphasize more strongly καθώς, ete. — Ver. 7. ἀγαπητοί, 
accepted by Griesb., on overwhelming authority, instead of the Rec., ἀδελφοί 
(G, K, ete.).— The addition ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, after ἠκούσατε (Rec., after G, K, etc.), 
already regarded as doubtful by Griesb., is with justice deleted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. (after A, B, C, 8, al.); it was added from the preceding; Reiche, it is 
true, thinks otherwise. — Ver. 8. ἐν ὑμῖν]. Rec. The reading ἔν ἡμῖν, recom- 
mended by Griesb., has in A too feeble evidence. — Ver. 10. Instead of ἐν αὐτῷ 
οὐκ ἔστιν (Rec., after B, G, K, al., Tisch.), A, C, 8, al., have οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὑτῷ 
(Lachm.).— Ver. 13. Instead of the Rec. γράφω ὑμῖν παιδία (K, al.), we must 
read, in accordance with A, B, C, G, 8, many min., vss., and Fathers: ἔγραψα 
ὑμῖν παιδία (Lachm., Tisch.; also recommended by Griesb.); see, further, on this 
passage. Instead of τὸν πονηρόν, 8 erroneously reads τὸ πονηρόν. --- 6 Γ. 14. 
Instead οὗ τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, B reads τὸ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, plainly following chap. i. 1; this, 
however, is not accepted by Buttm.; in B the addition τοῦ Θεοῦ is wanting after 
ὁ λόγος. -- Ver. 15. Instead of τοῦ πατρός (Rec., after B, G, K, &, al., Vulg., Syr., 
utr., ete., Oec., Thph., ete.), A, C, al., read Θεοῦ; which reading is the correct 
one, cannot be decided, as an intentional change of the one to the other cannot 
be proved. Ebrard considers Θεοῦ as original, but without adequate grounds. 
Lachm. and Tisch. have retained the Rec. — Ver. 17. Although Griesb. approves 
of the omission of αὐτοῦ after ἐπιθυμία (following A), it must nevertheless be con- 
sidered genuine. The difficulty of it easily explains why it would be left out. 
In some of the Latin Fathers there is found at the close of the verse the addi- 
tion: quo modo et Deus manet in aeternum, which Bengel, without reason, is 
disposed to regard as genuine. — Ver. 18. The article before ἀντίχριστος is at 
least doubtful; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it: it is wanting in B, C, x*. — 
Ver. 19. Instead of ἐξῆλθον the more unusual form ἐξῆλθαν is probably, with 
Lachm. and Tisch. (after A, B, C), to be regarded as genuine. δὲ, however, 
has ἐξῆλθον. ---- ΤῊ generally prevailing reading: ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, has been 
changed by Buttm. into ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἧσαν, according to his own statement, 
following B; Tisch. has not noticed this reading. In the following clause 
Tisch. reads: ei γὰρ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν, after B, C, al.; Lachm., on the other hand, 


CHAP, II. 1. 493 


has retained the Rec.: εἰ γὰρ ἧσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, after A, G, K, 8, al. pl., Vulg., ete. 
It is remarkable that even Buttm. —against the evidence of B—has the Rec, 
It cannot be decided which reading is the correct one. — Ver. 20. Buttm. omits 
και before οἴδατε, according to B; the πάντες, instead of πάντα presented (accord- 
ing te the statement of Tisch. maj.) by B, has not, however, been accepted by 
Buttm. — Ver. 23. The words ὁ ὁμολογῶν... ἔχει are wanting (after G, K, ete., 
Oec.) in the Rec. Calvin, Milius, Wolf, etc., do not consider them genuine; but 
they are sufficiently attested by A, B, Ὁ, 8, etc., etc., and with justice admitted 
into the text by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. — Ver. 24. The Rec. οὖν 
after ὑμεῖς is with justice deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following A, B, C, 8, 
al., Vulg., etc. —év τῷ πατρῇ. Ree. after A, C, G, K, al., Syr., utr., Sahid., al., 
Thph., Oec. (Tisch.). Lachm. has omitted ἐν (after B, Vulg., etc.). The omis- 
sion of the preposition is perhaps explained by the fact that it appeared super- 
fluous. δὰ reads ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἐν τῷ vid. —Instead of ἠκούσατε, § has both times 
the unusual reading ἀκηκόατε, --- Ver. 25. Instead of ἡμῖν, Lachm. in his small 
edition, following B, has accepted ὑμῖν (Buttm.); in the larger edition, however, 
ἡμῖν is rightly found, which is defended by almost all the authorities. — Ver. 27. 
On the form ἐλάϑατε, received by Tisch. 7, following B*, comp. Ph. Buttmann’s 
Compl. Gram., ὃ 96, note 9, and Winer, p. 68, VII., p. 71.— Instead of ἐν ὑμῖν 
μένει is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., which Griesb. previously recom- 
mended: μένει ἐν ὑμῖν (after A, B, C, 8, several vss., etc.). Buttm., following 
B. has accepted, instead of ἀλλ᾽ ὡς, the reading ἀλλά, which probably arose 
through a correction. Instead of the Rec. τὸ αὐτὸ χρίσμα (A, B, 6, K, ete., 
Thph., Oec., Hier.), retained by Lachm., with the approval of Bengel, Liicke. 
Brickner, τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα has been accepted by Tisch., following C, 4, 5, 7, al., 
which is approved of by Reiche and Braune; δὲ has also αὐτοῦ, but instead of 
χοῖσμα, ““ πνεῦμα: see the comm.—Instead of διδάσκει ὑμᾶς, Lachm. in his 
large edition reads διό, ἡ ἃ ἃς ; probably a misprint, as it is not noticed either by 
him or Tisch. as a special reading. —weveire]. Rec. after G, K, al. (Tisch.); 
Lachm. has received instead of it the reading μένετε, recommended by Griesb., 
following A, B, C, 8, al. The overwhelming evidence of the authorities is in — 
favor of this reading, which probably was changed at a later date in accordance 
with ver. 24; Reiche, however, has decided in favor of the Rec.; Diisterdieck, 
Ewald, Braune, and now Brickner also, justly prefer μένετε, ---- Ver. 28. The 
words at the beginning: καὶ viv . . . ἐν αὐτῷ, are wanting in §.— Instead of 
iva ὅταν (Rec. after G, K, al., Thph., Oec., Tisch.) we must read, with Lachm., 
following A, Β, C, 8, al., Copt., Sahid.: iva ἐάν, Instead of ἔχωμεν (Rec. after 
A, G, K, ete., Oec.), Lachm. and Tisch., following B, C, al., Thph., read 
σχῶμεν, S* has σχῶμεν; δὲ) has ἔχωμεν, The words ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ are read by δὲ not 
before but after παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, ---- Ver. 29. The Rec. ὅτι πὰς (Lachm., Tisch. 2) 
is found in B, G, K, several min., vss., and Fathers; A, Ὁ, κα, al., Vulg., read 
ὁτι καὶ πᾶς (Tisch. 7); if καί, on which Tisch. (ed. maj.) observes, cujus addendi 
nulla causa erat ; ex Johannis vero usu est, be genuine, it serves “‘ to bring out 
the agreement of the conclusion with the premise”’ (Ebrard). 


Vy. 1 and 2 are most closely connected with what immediately precedes, 
and further determine and conclude it. 

Ver. 1. The apostle had considered, in chap. 1. 7, the blood of Christ, in 
i. 9 the faithfulness and justice of God — and both in reference to the 
forgiveness and purification of believers; now he comfortingly points to 


494 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Christ as the Paraclete, whereby the previous thought now obtains its 
necessary complement. First, however, he mentions the object of his 
previous statement. —Texvia μου]. Similarly chap. 111. 18; without μον, 
ii. 12, 28, iii. 7. John chooses this form of address: tum propter aetatem 
suam, tum propter paternam curam et affectum (Hornejus). In regard to the 
verbal form, Lorinus rightly says: diminutiva nomina teneri ac blandientis sunt 
amoris signa. The Apostle Paul, in Gal. iv. 19, uses the same form of 
address, with special reference to the spjritual fatherhood in which he stood 
toward his readers. — ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν]. ταῦτα is referred by Bengel to what 
follows, by Grotius to what follows and what precedes, by most commentators 
(Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Sander, Diisterdieck, Braune), 
correctly, to the latter only; it refers, however, not merely to the truth 
expressed in ver. 6, nor merely to the “exhortation to self-knowledge and 
penitence” (De Wette) which is contained in the preceding, nor merely to 
the statement about forgiveness and cleansing; but to the “whole in its 
vivid harmony ” (Diisterdieck, so also Braune).! — iva μὴ ἁμάρτητε. Statement 
of the object for which the apostle wrote what precedes; the direction which 
Calvin gives it: ne quis putet eum peccandi licentiam dare, quum de misericordia 
Dei concionatur, which is also found in Augustin, Bede, Calov, Bengel, 
Hornejus, Diisterdieck, Ewald, etc., is incorrect, since the sternness of the 
apostle against sin has already been sharply and definitely expressed, and 
the context, in which the subject previously was the forgiveness of sin, 
would not permit such a supposition to arise at all.?— καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ. 
καί is neither = “ however” (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor = sed (Vulg.); it 
connects as simple copula a new thought with the preceding one. By ἐάν 
the possibility of sinning is admitted; Calvin incorrectly explains it: 
conditionalis particula “si quis” debet in causalem resolvi; nam fieri non potest 
quin peccemus. Whether it is possible for the Christian not to sin, John 
does not say. Under the influence of the new spirit of life which is 
communicated to the believer, he cannot sin; but, at the same time, in his 
internal and external mechanism there lies for him the possibility of sinning 
—and it is this which the apostle has in view. Socinus perverts the idea of 
the apostle when he interprets: si quis peccat, i.e., post Christum agnitum et 
professionem nominis ipsius adhuc in peccatis manet, necdum resipuit, etc. ; for, 


1 Ebrard refers ταῦτα to the two sentences into practical precepts the problem mentioned 


i. 6, 7, and 8-10, in which these thoughts, in- 
volving an apparent contradiction, are con- 
tained, — (1) ‘*That we must by no means 
walk in darkness,’ and (2) ‘that we must 
confess that we have, and that we commit 
sin,” and thinks that this apparent contra- 
diction is solved by ii. 1, in this way, that in 
contrast to those theoretical statements these 
two practical conclusions from them are here 
given, namely, (1) ‘that we ave not to sin;” 
(2) ‘*that when we have sinned we are to 
reflect that in Christ we have an Advocate.” 
But against this it is to be observed, (1) that 
by such a changing of theoretical statements 


above is really not solved; (2) that the ideas 
expressed in i. 6, 7, and in i. 8-10, do not stand 
to one another in the relation of co-ordination, 
but the idea of i. 8-10 is subordinated to that 
of i. 6,7; (8) that it is herewith presupposed 
that the apostle should have written: καὶ ἵνα 
εἰδῆτε, OTL, ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχομεν» 
which, however, is incorrect, as the advocate- 
office of Christ is not mentioned in the pre- 
ceding. 

2 Socinus incorrectly renders ἁμαρτάνειν = 
manere in peccatis; Loffer even more s0 
= **to remain unbaptized.” 


é CHAP. II. 1. 495 


on the one hand, the true Christian may indeed sin, but cannot remain in 
his sins; and, on the other hand, Christ is not the παράκλητος for him who 
remains in his sins. Besser correctly: “If any man sin — not with wilful 
doing of sin, but in spite of the will in his mind, which says no to sin.” — 
παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. From the first pers. plur. it follows that the 
preceding τις is used quite generally; the apostle is speaking communicatively, 
and does not wish himself to be considered excluded.! It is unnecessary for 
the connection of this sentence to supply “let him know that,” or “ let him 
comfort himself with the thought that,” or any similar expression; for it is 
precisely through the ἁμαρτάνειν of believers, that Christ is induced to be 
their Paraclete. The verb éyew indicates that Christ belongs to believers.? 
— The word παράκλητος has both a general and a special forensic meaning ; 
in the former, in which it is = “assister,” or “helper,” it is used in Gospel 
of John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, where the Holy Ghost is so called because 
by His witness He leads the disciples into all truth; see Meyer on John 
xiv. 10:8 here, on the other hand, it is used in its forensic meaning 
= “advocatus, patronus causae,” or even more special = “ intercessor,” and 
is in close connection with the following ἱλασμός, and refers back to the 
ἀφιέναι and καθαρίζειν of chap. i. 9; so that in Christ the typical action of 
the high priest interceding for the people has reached its complete fulfilment. 
The idea of the apostle therefore is — as almost all commentators recognize 4 
—the same as is expressed in Rom. viii. 34 (ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν), in 
Heb. ix. 24 (εἰσῆλθεν ὁ Χριστὸς... εἰς, . . τὸν οὐρανόν, viv ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ 
προσώπῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν), and in Heb. vii. 25.5— πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. πρός in 
the same sense as chap. i. 2. — God is called πατῆρ, because the παράκλητος is the 
Son of God, and we also (believing Christians) have become through Him 
τέκνα Tod Θεοῦ, chap. 111. 1, 2. ---- Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον. Christ is the Paraclete, 
not as the Logos, but as the incarnate Logos, who has shed His aiua (chap. i. 7) 
for the atonement,—and indeed inasmuch as He is δίκαιος ; δίκαιος is here 
also neither = lenis et bonus (Grotius), nor = δικαιῶν (see Wolf on this 


1 Augustin: “*Habemus dixit, non habetis; as in John xiv. 16 it is expressly put: ἄλλον 


maluit se ponere in numero peccatorum, ut 
habeat advocatum Christum, quam ponere se 
pro Christo advocato et inveniri inter damnan- 
dos superbos.’’? — Socinus thinks that the 
apostle speaks in the first person, ‘‘non quod 
revera ipse esset unus ex illis, qui adhuc pec- 
carent, sed ut melius indicet, id quod affirmat 
pertinere ad omnes, quibus evangelium an- 
nunciatum est;”’ clearly erroneous. Grotius 
arbitrarily: ‘‘Habet ille advocatum, sed ec- 
clesia habet, quae pro Japso precatur. Preces 
autem ecclesiae Christus more adyocati Deo 
patri commendat.” 

2 Besser: ‘‘ He has made Himself ours, has 
given our faith an eternally valid claim on 
Him.” 

3 In the fact that in the Gospel of John the 
Holy Ghost, but here Christ, is called παρακλη- 
τος, there is 80 much the less a contradiction, 


παράκλητον, by which Christ signifies that He 
Himself is the proper παράκλητος, and the 
Holy Ghost His substitute. 

4 Ebrard, who here gives the same explana 
tion, explains the expression in the Gospel of 
John = “" Comforter,” ὃς παρακαλεῖ (more cor- 
rectly παρακαλεῖται, mid.), according to the 
Hebrew onin, LXX. Job xvi. 2; but in this 
passage it is not παράκλητος, but παρακλήτως, 
that is used; Hofmann’s explanation is also 
incorrect (Schriftbew., Il. 2, p. 15 ff.) = 
“Teacher” (comp. Meyer and Hengstenberg 
on John xiy. 16). 

5 This idea is not, as it might appear, in 
contradiction with John xvi. 26; for even in 
this statement a lasting intercession by Christ 
is indicated, since Christ aseribes the hearing 
of prayer in His name to Himself (xiv. 13) as 
well as to the Father. 


496 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


passage); but neither is it = fidelis atque verax, quatenus id praestat quod 
promisit, se scilicet suis adfuturum (Socinus) ; according to the usus loquendi, 
δίκαιος could be understood of (judicial) justice (Bede: justus advocatus, 
injustas causas non suscipit), but then the adjective would have had to be put 
with παράκλητον; Ebrard incorrectly explains it = δίκαιος καὶ δικαιῶν ; but this 
explanation is so much the more unwarrantable, as δικαιοῦν is the very 
business of the παράκλητος ; by the epithet δίκαιος, Christ is held up before the 
ἁμαρτάνουσι as one who by His nature is fitted to be the Paraclete of sinners, 
i.e, as one who perfectly satisfies the will of God; who is “just and 
stainless, and without sin” (Luther). “Only as the Holy One, in whom 
the holy ideal of manhood is seen realized, can He intercede for sinners with 
the heavenly Father ” (Neander). 


REMARK. — How Christ executes His office of Advocate with the Father, 
John does not say; a dogmatic exposition of it is not in place here, still it is 
important to mark the chief elements which are the result of the apostle’s 
statement. These are the following: 1. The Paraclete is Jesus, the glorified 
Redeemer, who.is with the Father ; therefore neither His divine nature alone, 
nor His human nature alone, but the Lord in His divine-human personality. 
2. The presupposition is the reconciliation of men with God by His blood. 
3. His advocacy has reference to believers, who still sin amid their walking in 
light; and, 4. It is a real activity in which He intercedes for His people (that 
God may manifest in their forgiveness and sanctification His faithfulness and 
justice) with God, as His (and their) Father. If these points are observed, on 
the one hand, there is found in the apostolic statement no ground for a materi- 
alistic conception, which Calvin opposes in the following words: obiter notan- 
dum est, nimis crasse errare eos, qui patris genibus Christum advolvunt, ut pro 
nobis oret. Tollendae sunt eiusmodi cogitationes, quae coelesti Christi gloriae 
derogant ; but neither, on the other hand, is there any justification for doing 
away with the idea, as not a few commentators have been guilty of. Even Bede 
has not kept himself free from it, when he says that the advocacy consists in 
this, that Christ presents Himself as man to God, and prays for us non voce, sed 
miseratione, and therefore considers the intercessio, not as an actio realis, but 
only as an actio interpretativa. But the idea is even more done away with, 
when the intercession is viewed only as the permanent effect of the redemptive 
work accomplished by Christ in the giving up of His life to the death, which is 
no doubt the opinion of Baumgarten-Crusius when he says: “‘The apostles 
certainly did not think of a special oral intercession, but of an intercession by 
deed, in His work.’’1 Liicke rightly says: ‘‘The meaning of this form of 
representation is no other than this, that Jesus Christ also in His doga with the 
Father continues His work of reconciliation. If Christ were not the eternal 
Paraclete for us with God, His saving and reconciling work would be limited to 
His earthly life merely, and in so far could not be regarded as eternal and com- 
plete;”’ but it is not to the point when he further puts it: ‘‘ Without the eter- 


1 Similarly KG6stlin (p. 61): ‘* Christ is the Frommann also (p. 472 ff.) finds in the state- 
eternal παράκλητος; He does not, however, ment of the apostle only a symbolical form of 
pray the Father, but the sense of His office of | expression, by which the continuation of the 
Advocate is simply this, that for His sake the atoning work of Christ in His state of exalta- 
Father also loves those who believe on Him.” tion is indicated. 


CHAP. II. 2. 497 
nally active saving and reconciling spirit of Christ, without the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, 
Christ would not be a perfect, a living Christ;’’ for John is not here speaking 
of the πνεῦμα of Christ, but of the personal Christ Himself. The explanation of 
De Wette, that the advocacy of Christ is the combination of the idea of the 
glorified and of the suffering Messiah, is also unsatisfactory, becauses it changes 
the objective reality into a subjective representation. Neander rightly says: 
‘* When Christ is described as the Advocate, this is not to be understood as if 
only the effects of the work once accomplished by Him were transferred to 
Himself. — John considers the living Christ as personally operating in His work, 
as operating in His glorified position with His Father, with the same holy love 
with which He accomplished His work on earth as a mediation for sinful man. 
It is by Him in His divine-human personality that the connection between man, 
saved and reconciled to God by Him, and God as the Father, is always brought 
about.’? Comp. also Meyer on Rom. viii. 34, and Braune in the fundamental 
dogmatic ideas of the passage. 


Ver. 2. καὶ αὐτός = et ipse, idemque ille ; καί is here also the simple copula, 
and is not to be resolved either into quia (a Lapide) or nam. —avroc refers 
back to Ἴησ. Χριστὸν dixaov, and the epithet δίκαιον is not to be lost sight of 
here; Paulus, contrary to the context, refers αὐτός to God. — iAacuog ἐστι]. 
The word ἐλασμός, which is used besides in the N. T. only in chap. iv. 10, 
and here also indeed in combination with περὶ τὼν du ἡμῶν, may, according to 
Ezek. xliv. 27 (= NWN), mean the sin-offering (Lucke, 3d ed.), but is here 
to be taken in the sense of D153, Ley. xxv. 9, Num. v. 8, and no doubt in 
this way, that Christ is called the ἱλασμός, inasmuch as He has expiated by 
His aiua the guilt of sin. This reference to the sacrificial blood of Christ, 
it is true, is not demanded by the idea ἱλασμός in itself,1 but certainly is 
demanded by the context, as the apostle can only ascribe to the blood of 
Christ, in chap. i. 7, the cleansing power of which he is there speaking, 
because he knows that reconciliation is based on it. 


REMARK. — In classical Greek ἱλάσκεσθαι (as middle) is = ἔλεων ποιεῖν  Ὀπὶ in 
Scripture it never appears in this active signification, in which God would not 
be the object; but in all the passages where the Septuagint makes use of this 
word, whether it is as the translation of 132 (Ps. Ixv. 4, Ixxviii. 38, Ixxix. 9), 
or of Ὁ (Ps. xxiv. 11; 2 Kings v. 18), or of ὉΠ) (Exod. xxxii. 14), God is the 
subject, and sin, or sinful man, is the object; in Heb. ii. 17, Christ is the sub- 
ject, and the object also is τὰς ἁμαρτίας. The case is almost exactly similar with 
ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, which does not appear in the N. T. at all, but in the O. T., on 
the other hand, is used as the translation of "92 much more frequently than the 
simple form; it is only where this verb is used of the relation between men, 


1 In the Septuagint not only does ἰλασμός 
appear as the translation of the Hebrew 
amo (Ps. exxix. 4; Dan. ix. 9), but iAac- 
κεσθαι is also used = fo be merciful, to forgive 
(Ps. Ixy. 4, xxviii. 38, Ixxix. 9), — quite with- 
out reference to an offering. — The explanation 
of Paulus, however: ‘He (i.e., God) is the 


pure exercise of compassion on account of 
sinful faults,” is not justifiable, because, in 
the first place, God is not the subject, and 
secondly, the iAaguds of Christ is not the 
forgiveness itself, but is that-which procures 
forgiveness. 


498 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


namely, Gen. xxxii. 21 and Prov. xvi. 14, that the classical usus loquendi is 
preserved; but elsewhere with ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, whether the subject be God (as in 
Ezek. xvi. 63) or man, especially the priest, the object is either man (Lev. iv. 20, 
v. 26, vi. 7, xvi. 6, 11, 16, 17, 24, 80, 33; Ezek. xlv. 17) or sin (Exod. xxxii. 30; 
both together, Lev. v. 18, Num. vi. 11), or even holiness defiled by sin (the 
most holy place, Lev. xvi. 16; the altar, Lev. xvi. 18, xxvii. 33, Ezek. xliii. 22); 
only in Zech. vii. 2 is found ἐξιλάσκασθαι τὸν κύριον, where, however, the Hebrew 
text has M7" 53. ΠΝ midnd. Ἰλασμῦς, therefore, in Scripture does not denote 
the reconciliation of God, either with Himself or with men, and hence not 
placatio: (or, as Myrberg interprets: propitiatio) Dei, but the justification or 
reconciliation of the sinner with God, because it is never stated in the N. T. 
that God is reconciled, but rather that we are reconciled to God. 


Grotius, S. G Lange, and others take ἐλασμός = ἱλαστήρ; of course that 
abstract form denotes the personal Christ, but by this change into the con- 
crete the expression of the apostle loses its peculiar character; “the abstract 
is more comprehensive, more intensive, comp. 1 Cor. i. 30° (Brickner) ; it 
gives it to be understood “that Christ is not the propitiator through any 
thing outside Himself, but through Himself” (Lucke, 2d ed.), and that 
there is no propitiation except through Him.?— The relation of iAacude to 
the preceding παράκλητον may be variously regarded; either παράκλητος is the 
higher idea, in which jAacuéc is contained, Bede: advocatum habemus apud 
Patrem qui interpellat pro nobis et propitium eum ac placatum peccatis nostris 
reddit. or, conversely, ἱλασμός is the higher idea, to which the advocacy is 
subordinated, as De Wette thus says . ““ἱλασμός does not merely refer to the 
sacrificial death of Jesus, but, as the more general idea, includes the inter- 
cession as the progressive reconciliation (so also Rickli, Frommann); or, 
lastly, both ideas are co-ordinate with one another, Christ being the iAaouoc 
in regard to His blood which was shed, and the παράκλητος, on the other 
hand, in regard to His present activity with the Father for those who are 
reconciled to God through His blood. Against the first view is the sentence 
beginning with καὶ αὐτός, by which ἱλασμός is marked as an idea which is not 
already contained in the idea παράκλητος, but is distinct from it; against the 


1 Comp. Delitzsch in his Commentary on 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, on chap ii. 17, 
p. 94 ff. But it is to be noticed that Delitzsch, 
while he states correctly the Biblical mode of 
representation, bases his opening discussion 
on the idea of the ‘‘self reconciliation of the 
Godhead with itself,” an idea which is not 
contained in Scripture.—It is observed by 
several commentators that ἱλασμός, as dis- 
tinguished from καταλλαγή = ““ Verséhnung’”’ 
(reconciliation), is to be translated by 
 Siihnung’’ or “ Verstihnung’’ (both = Engl. 
expiation, atonement. It is true, Versdhnung 
and Versiihnung are properly one and the 
same word, but in the usage of the language 
the distinction has certainly been fixed that 
the latter word denotes the restoration of the 


disturbed relationship by an expiation to be 
performed; only it 18 inexact to assert that 
the idea ἱλασμός in itself contains the idea of 
punishment, since ιλάσκεσθαι does not include 
this idea either in classical or in Biblical usage, 
and ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, though mostly indeed used 
in the O. T. in reference to a sacrifice by 
which sin is covered, is also used without this 
reference (comp. Ecclus. iii. 28). 

2 The case is the same with the expression 
ἱλασμός as with other abstractions by which 
Christ is described, as ζωή, ὁδός, αγιασμός, 
«.7.A. Who does not feel that by these words 
something much more comprehensive is ex- 
pressed than in the concrete forms: ὁ ζωοποιῶν, 
ὁ ὁδηγῶν, ὁ ἁγιάζων, K.T.A,? 


CHAP. II. 2. 499 


second view it is decisive that the propitiation, which Christ is described as, 
has reference to all sins, but his intercession, on the other hand, has refer- 
ence only to the sins of the believers who belong to Him. There remains, 
accordingly, only the third view as the only correct one (so also Braune). 
The relationship is this, that the intercession of the glorified Christ has as 
its presupposition the ἑλασμός wrought out in His death,’ yet the sentence 
καὶ αὐτός is not merely added, ut causa reddatur, cur Christus sit advocatus noster 
(Hornejus, and similarly Beza, Lorinus, Sander, etc.), for its independence 
is thereby taken away; the thought contained in it not merely serves for the 
explanation or confirmation of the preceding, but it is also full of meaning 
in itself, as it brings out the relation of Christ to the whole world of sinners. 
περὶ πῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν]. περί expresses the reference quite generally: “in 
regard to;” it may here be observed that ἐξιλάσκεσθαι in the LXX. is usually 
construed with περί, after the Hebrew oy 195. The idea of substitution is 
not suggested in περί. --- With τῶν ἁμαρτ. ἡμῶν, comp. chap. i. 9; it is not 
merely the sins of Christians (ἡμῶν, i.e., fidelium; Bengel) before their con- 
version that are meant, but also those which are committed by them in their 
Christian life; comp. chap. i. 7. Ebrard’s opinion, that these words are 
added to ἱλασμός merely as a preparation for the following additional 
thought, is inadmissible; they rather suggest themselves to the apostle — 
and without regard to what follows—inasmuch as it is only by virtue of 
them that the idea obtains complete expression. — οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων dé 
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου]. Expansion of the thought, in reference 
to the preceding περὶ τ. du. ἡμῶν, in order to mark the universality of the 
propitiation. It is incorrect to understand by ἡμεῖς the Jews, and by κόσμος 
the Gentiles (Oecum., Cyril, Hornejus, Semler, Rickli, ete.) ; ἡμεῖς are rather 
believers, and κόσμος is the whole of unbelieving mankind; so Spener, 
Paulus, De Wette, Liicke, Sander, Neander, Diisterd., Braune, etc. — 
Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with this interpretation, only he understands by 
κόσμος not mankind together (extensive), but successively (protensive) ; but 
this distinction is unsuitable. It would be preferable to say that John was 
thinking directly of the κόσμος as it existed in his time, without, however, 
limiting the idea to it. The interpretation of Augustin and of Bede, by 
which κόσμος is = “ecclesia electorum per totum mundum dispersa,” is clearly 
quite arbitrary. The propitiatory sacrifice was offered for the whole world, 
for the whole of fallen mankind; if all do not obtain the blessing of it, the 
cause of that does not lie in a want of efficacia in it; Diisterdieck therefore 
rightly says: “The propitiation is of judicial nature; according to this, the 
propitiation for the whole world has its real efficacia for the whole world: 
to the believing it brings life; to the unbelieving, death.” Calvin quite 
improperly asserts: sub omnibus reprobos non comprehendit, sed eos designat, 
qui simul credituri erant et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant (similarly 


1 Kdstlin incorrectly says (p. 180): “Christ _itself:”? for neither does παράκλ. describe the 
is παράκλητος, while he is ἱλασμός, i.e., high high-priesthood of Christ, according to its 
priest, and at the same time sacrifice, a high full comprehension, nor does ιλασμός mean 
priest who offers himself; and ἱλασμός, while ** sacrifice.” 

He is παράκλητος, i.e., ἃ sacrifice which offers 


500 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

Beza) ; against this the statement of Bengel is sufficient: quam late peccatum, 
tam late propitiatio. The expressly added ὅλου places the matter beyond all 
doubt. — With regard to the genitive περὶ ὅλ. τοῦ κόσμου, Winer says (p. 536 
[E. T., 577]): “instead of this, either περὶ τῶν ὅλου τ. x., or, instead of the 
first words, rep? ἡμῶν might have been written; similarly Heb. ix. 7;” many 
commentators, on the other hand, supply τῶν directly, as Grotius, Semler, 
Wilke (Hermeneutik, II. p. 145), De Wette, Diisterdieck; as the Vulg. ren- 
ders : “pro totius mundi,” and Luther: “fiir der ganzen Welt.” On behalf of 
this, appeal is made to passages such as John v. 80,1 Matt. v. 20; but the 
construction which appears in these passages is the well-known comparatio 
compendiaria, which does not occur here, as there is no comparison here at 
all; an oratio variata is therefore to be accepted, which was the more natural 
to the apostle, as the idea κόσμος includes in itself that of sin.? 

Vy. 3-11. Further antithetical statement of the believers’ walk in light; 
it is described as τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς Θεοῦ (vv. 3-6) ; this then is further defined 
as ἃ περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε (ver. 6). and ἀγαπᾷν τὸν ἀδελφόν is empha- 
sized as being the essence of this walk (vv. 7-11). 

Ver. 3. Semler would make a new section begin here: “after the foun- 
dation of salvation has been spoken of, there follows the exhortation to 
preserving the salvation; ” incorrectly; ver. 3 is closely connected with 
chap. i. 5, 6, and states in what the Christian’s walk in light consists; there- 
fore also it begins simply with καί. ---- ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν]. ἐν τοὐτῷ refers to the 
following éav; the object is stated by ὅτε; the same combination is found in 
the Gospel of John xiii. 35; similarly in chap. iv. 18, where, however, the 
particle ὅτι is used instead of ἐάν, and chap. v. 2, where ὅταν is used. A 
Lapide wrongly weakens the force of γινώσκομεν : non certo et demonstrative, 
sed probabiliter et conjecturaliter ; it is rather the anxiety of the apostle to 
bring out that the Christian has a sure and certain consciousness of the 
nature of the Christian life. This certainty is confirmed to him by unmis- 
takable facts, in which the truth of his knowledge attests itself. —6r éyvé- 
καμὲν αὐτόν]. αὐτόν seems to refer to the last-mentioned subject in ver. 2, 
therefore to Christ; so it is explained by Oecumenius, Erasmus, Grotius, 
Calov, Spener, Bengel, Semler, Johannsen, Sander, Myrberg, Erdmann, etc. : 
but the deeper train of thought is opposed to this; John is not continuing the 
idea of ver. 2, but is going back to the fundamental thought of the whole 
section : “ He who has fellowship with God walks in the light; ” the principal 
subject is God, and to it, therefore, αὐτόν is to be referred; so Calvin, Beza, 
Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, De Wette, Briickner, Ebrard, Diister- 
dieck, Braune, οἷο. --- On ἐγνώκαμεν, which is not, with Lange and Carpzov, 


1 This passage is cited by Ebrard further, 
in order to prove his assertion: “" This abbre- 
Viation for περὶ τῶν ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου needs no 
explanation ”’ (!). 

2 When Braune, who has accepted the ex- 
planation which is here given of the verse as a 
whole and in detail, says in reference to the 
oratio variata which occurs here: ‘it has 


not happened for the sake of the evil which 
attaches to the κόσμος, for this is true of 
Christians also (contrary to Huther),” he 
thereby shows that he has not correctly un- 
derstood the above remark. 

3 The reason brought forward by Ebrard: 
‘*it lies also in the idea of the commandments, 
that they are mentioned as commandments of 


CHAP. II. 4. 501 


to be interpreted = “love,” the commentators rightly remark that it is not 
a mere external, purely theoretical knowledge that is to be understood by 
it;} it is the living knowledge that is meant, i.e., a knowledge in which the 
subject (God) is really received into the inner life, and thought and action 
are determined by it,? so that ἐγνωκέναι is necessarily connected with the 
κοινωνίαν ἔχειν per’ αὐτοῦ (chap. i. 6); still it is inexact to render ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν 
αὐτόν, With Oecumenius, directly by ὅτι συνεκράθημεν αὐτῷ, or, with Clarius, by 
societatem habemus cum eo. By ἐγνώκαμεν the element of consciousness in the 
fellowship, and with this its internal and spiritual side, is brought out. — 
ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὑτοῦ τηρῶμεν]. The expression τ, évrod, τηρεῖν ὃ describes the 
obedience resulting from the internal faithful keeping of the command- 
ments :# it is incorrect, with Braune, so to press the idea rypeiv here, in its 
distinction from ποιεῖν, that merely “attention to the commandments” is to 
be understood by it; it rather includes in itself the actual obedience. This 
obedience is not here regarded as the means of the knowledge of God, but as 
the proof of it; rightly Oecumenius: διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἡ τελεία δεδείκνυται ἀγάπη ; 
only he should have said “ γνῶσις ᾿ instead of ἀγάπη. Between both of those 
there is the same relationship as between fellowship with God and walking 
in light; for as the former is related to the knowledge of God, so is the 
latter related to the observance of the divine commandments, which is 
the concrete embodimeut of ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατεῖν. 

Ver. 4. Inference from ver. 3, expressing the antithetical side. — ὁ λέγων, 
k.7.2., is used in the same sense as ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, chap. i. 6. Without reason, 
Braune considers that “in the singular there lies a progress in the develop- 


\ 


the Father and not of the Son,” is not valid; as the idea of knowledge is not kept pure in 
comp. Gospel of John xiv. 15, 21, 23, xv. 10. it from confusion with other ideas; but when 
Ebrard, on the other hand, rightly points to Weiss says that in John only “186 knowledge 
ver. 6, where éxetvos (Christ) is distinguished that rests on immediate contemplation is to be 
from αὐτός. From this verse it also follows thought of,’? and observes that ‘it lies in the 
that John, in this section, is considering Christ nature of the case, that in this intuition and 
not as having given commandments, but as contemplation the object is received into the 


having walked according to the command- entire spiritual being of a man as a—nay, as 
ments of God. the determining power,”’ he not only agrees 

1 Lorinus: “ Cognoscere cum quadam volun- with the explanation given above, but defines 
tatis propendentis approbatione.’’ — A Lapide: the idea in such a way as not to deviate so very 


**Cognitione hon tantum speculativa, sed et far from the commentators whom he opposes 
practica, quae cum amore et affectu conjuncta as his polemic would lead one to suppose. 

est, ac in opus derivatur.” — Spener: ‘* This is 8 It is to be noticed, that to describe the 
not a mere knowing (1 Cor. viii. 1), such as Christian commandments John never uses 
may exist without love, but a knowledge which νόμος (which by him is on/y used in reference 
comes into the heart and fulfils His will with to the Mosaic law), but generally ἐντολαί 
trust.””»— De Wette: ‘* Knowledge of the heart, (only now and then λόγος Θεοῦ or Χριστοῦ) ; 
not of the mind, wherewith activity is also and as verb, τηρεῖν, never ποιεῖν (except in 
assumed.” — Liicke: ‘* The knowledge of God Rev. xxii. 14).—In the writings of Paul, 
in the highest sense; not, however, in so far τηρεῖν ἐντολήν appears only in 1 Tim. vi. 14, 
as it is identical with the love of God, but only and besides in the N. T. in Matt. xix. 17 (chap. 
in so far as it really impels men practically to XXvili. 20: τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν). 


fulfilment of the divine commands, and thus 4 The paraphrase of Semler may be given 
reveals itself in growing love to the God who here merely for its curiosity: ‘‘ Si (nos Apos- 
is known as the Light.” toli) retinemus et magnifacimus hane ejus 


2 Weiss not unjustly contends against the doctrinam: Deum esse pariter omnium gen- 
current view of γινώσκειν in John, in so far _ tium.”” 


602 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

‘ment of the thought.” The statement that ἔγνωκα is used ‘‘ with manifest 
regard to the Gnostics” (Ebrard), is not to be accepted; ὁ λέγων is rather to 
be taken in a quite general sense, comp. ver. 6, at the same time referring 
to the appearance of such a moral indifferentism among the churches. αὐτόν, 
as in ver. 3 = Θεύν. --- ψεύστης ἐστί = ψεύδεται, chap. i. 6; but in such a way 
that the idea is more sharply brought out by it (Braune). — καὶ ἐν τούτῳ, κ.τ.}.» 
as in chap. i. 8. — From the connection between the knowledge of God, 
and the observance of His commandments, it follows that he who boasts 
of the former, but is wanting in the latter, has not the truth in him, but 
is a liar. 

Ver. 5. In this verse the apostle confirms the idea of ver. 8, in the form 
of an antithesis to ver. 4, and with the introduction of a new element. — 
ὃς δ᾽ Gv τηρῇ αὐτοῦ (i.e., Θεοῦ) τὸν λόγον]. The particle dé, which refers not to 
ver. 3 (Liicke), but to the words καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν, ver. 4, shows 
that this verse stands in the same relationship to ver. 4 as chap. i. 7 to ver. 
6; “τηρῇ is with emphasis put first, and similarly αὐτοῦ before τὸν Adyov” 
(Braune). — αὐτοῦ ὁ λόγος is synonymous with ai ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ, vv. ὃ and 4: 
“the essence of the divine commandments ;” a Lapide: Dicit verbum ejus in 
singulari, quia praecipue respicit legem caritatis ; haec enim caeteras omnes in se 
comprehendit. — The predicate does not run, οὗτος ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν, but ἀληθῶς ἐν 
τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται, Whereby “a new side of the thought comes 
into view ” (Ebrard). — ἀληθῶς, “in truth,” opposed to appearance and mere 
pretence; it is emphatically put first, as in John viii. 31, with reference to 
the preceding ἡ ἀλήθεια (De Wette) ; and serves to bring out not a quality of 
the τετελείωται (Ebrard), but the actuality of the ἐν τούτῳ... 
also Brickner). — ἐν τούτῳ 7 ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται]. 7 ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ is not 
here, as in chap. iv. 9, “the love of God to us” (Flacius, Calovius, Bengel, 
Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Lange, etc.), nor, “the love commanded by 
God” (Episcopius), nor, “the relationship of mutual love between God and 
man” (Ebrard: “the mutua amicitia et conjunctio between God and the Chris- 
tian ”);1 but “love to God,” as in chap. ii. 15, iii. 17, iv. 12, v. 3 (Bede, 
Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus, De Wette- 
Brickner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, 
Braune, etc.). This interpretation is required by the context; for “the love 
of God” appears here in place of the “" knowledge of God,” vv. 3 and 4. 
As in the latter, so in the former also, consists fellowship with God. Both, 
love and knowledge, are so inseparably connected, and are so essentially one 
in their principle and nature, that the one is the condition of the other. — 
The idea τετελείωται is not to be weakened, as in Beza: τελειοῦν hoc in loco non 
declarat perfecte aliquid consummare, sed mendacio et simulationi opponitur, ut 
hoc plane sit, quod dicimus: mettre en exécution; but it is to be taken in its 


τετελείωται (SO 


1 Similarly Besser : ‘* ‘ The love of God inus’ 
usually embraces both God’s love to us, by 
which, and our love to God, in which, we live. 
This is the case in this passage also.”’ This 
interpretation can be just as little grammati- 
cally justified as that of Ebrard; neither a du- 


plicity nor a mutual relationship is expressed 
in the phrase ἡ ay. Tov Θεοῦ. 

2 Grotius, it is true, is not wrong when he 
says: “Amor praesupponit cognitionem;” 
but it is just as correct to say: ‘‘Cognitio 
praesupponit amorem.”’ 


͵ 


CHAP. II. 6. 503 
constant meaning: “has been perfected,” as in chap. iv. 12, 17, 18.1. The 
objection, that nevertheless no Christian can boast of perfect love to God, 
does not justify an arbitrary change of meaning. The absolute idea τηρεῖν 
αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον demands for its counterpart an idea quite as absolute (so also 
Briickner).2, Where the word of God is perfectly fulfilled, there love to God 
is perfect ; in perfect obedience, perfect love is shown. That the Christian 
has not attained this perfection at any moment of his life, but is ever only 
in a state of progress towards it, is no doubt true; but John is not here con- 
sidering that aspect (so also Braune).? — ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν]. ἐν τούτῳ refers 
neither to the thought contained in ver. 6 (Socinus, Ewald), nor to ἡ ἀγάπη 
. .. Tered., but to the keeping of the commandments (so also Diisterdieck, 
Ebrard, Briickner, Braune). Obedience is the evidence for the knowledge 
that we are ἐν αὐτῷ. ---- ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσμεν]. The expression signifies the inward 
fellowship of life (differently Acts xvii. 28); it combines the preceding ἐν 
τούτῳ... tered, and the former ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, and is identical with κοινωνίαν 
ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (chap. i. 6), which it defines in its internal character. The 
knowledge and love of God is being in God (so also Briickner).*— Grotius, 
who understands αὐτῷ of Christ, enfeeblingly explains: Christi ingenii dis- 
cipuli sumus. 

Ver. 6 gives the more particular definition of what the τηρεῖν of God’s 
commandments, and therefore the Christian’s walk in light, consists in. — 
ὁ λέγων, as in ver. 4; here, however, with the infinitive construction. — ἐν 
αὐτῷ μένειν]. ἐν αὐτῷ does not refer to Christ (Augustin, Hornejus, Wolf, 
Lange, Neander, etc.), but to God. —yévew instead of εἶναι, ver. 5. Both 
expressions are synonymous, it is true, but not identical (Beza); in μένειν 
the unchangeableness of the being is brought out. Bengel: Synonyma cum 
gradatione : illum nosse, in illo esse, in illo manere. Frommamnn (p. 187): “The 
being and abiding in God signifies one and the same fellowship with God. 
The latter describes it merely as something constant, lasting, which accessory 
notion is not contained in the former expression.” — ὀφείλει (comp. chap. 
ili. 16, iv. 11, “is in duty bound”) refers back to ὁ λέγων; it is not meant to 
be indicated here what is demanded in regard to the μένειν ἐν Θεῷ, but what 


1 Even Bengel’s interpretation : “ Perfectum 
regimen nactus et perfecte cognitus est (viz., 
amor Dei erga hominem),” does not corre- 
spond to the idea of the word. 

2 Ebrard, it is true, wants the idea τετε- 
λείωται to be retained unweakened, but finds 
himself compelled by his interpretation of 
ἡ ay. τ. ©. to agree with Beza’s explanation, 
because ‘‘ in the case of a relationship its per- 
fection is nothing else than its conclusion.” 
Ebrard’s opinion, that if ἡ ay. τ. ©. = “ love 
to God,” John must have written τελεία ἐστίν 
instead of τετελείωται, is — besides being con- 
trary to John’s wusus loguendi — without 
foundation. 

8 In Calvin’s explanation: “ Si quis objiciat, 
nheminem unquam fuisse repertum, qui Deum 
ita perfecte diligeret, respondeo: sufficere, 


modo quisque pro gratiae sibi datae mensura 
ad hance perfectionem aspiret,”’ and in that of 
Socinus: ‘Est autem perfectio ἰδία caritatis 
in Deum et obedientia praeceptorum ejus ita 
intelligenda, ut non omnino requiratur, ne ei 
quicquam deesse possit, sed tantum ut ejus- 
modi sit, qua Deus pro sua ingenti erga nos 
bonitate contentus esse voluit,’’ limitations are 
introduced which are foreign to the apostle’s 
train of thought. 

4 In substantial agreement with this Weiss 
says: ‘In vy. 3 and 4 it was stated that in the 
keeping of God’s commandments we recognize 
that we have known God. If, therefore, there 
is a continuous train of thought here, the 
being in God must only be a new expression 
for the knowing of God, or must be directly 
given along with it,’”’ 


504 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 
is the duty of him who says that he abides in God —if he does not want to 
be a liar, in whom the truth is not, ver. 4. — καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε, καὶ αὐτὸς 
[οὕτως] περιπατεῖν. By these words Christ is placed as a pattern before 
Christians, i.e., in regard to His whole walk (which is elsewhere done in the 
N. T. only in regard to His self-abasement and to His conduct in suffering ; 
see this commentary on 1 Pet. ii. 21); of what sort this was, John does not 
here say; from the connection with what precedes, however, it is clear that 
the apostle points to Him in so far as He kept the commandments of God, 
and therefore walked in the light.1_| This reference to Christ as an example 
is frequently found in the same form (καθὼς ἐκεῖνος) in our Epistle; so iii. 3, 7, 
iv. 17; comp. also John xiii. 15, xv. 10, and passim. — περιπατεῖν describes 
not merely the disposition, but the action resulting from it. In the fact that 
John brings just this out (comp. especially chap. iii. 17, 18), it is evident 
how far his mysticism is removed from mere fanaticism. — On οὕτως, see the 
critical notes. 

Vv. 7-11. A more particular statement of the nature and import of 
τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ or Of περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε. 
Such ἃ form of address does not necessarily indicate 
the commencement of a new section, but is also used when the subject of the 
discourse is intended to be brought home to the hearers or readers; this is 
the case here. — οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν certainly does not mean: “I do 
not write to you of a new commandment;” neither, however: “I write (set) 
before you” (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; for γράφειν has not this signification ; it 
simply means to write; when connected with an object, as here, it is = to 
communicate or announce any thing by writing; comp. chap. i. 4. The 
subject of his writing, the apostle calls an ἐντολῆ. It is arbitrary to take 
the word here in a different meaning from that which it always has; thus 
Rickli: “the whole revelation of divine truth as it has been brought to us 
in Jesus Christ”? (similarly Flacius, Calovius, etc.); and Ebrard: “the 
announcement, that God is light, chap. i. 5;” ἐντολῆ means “ commandment; ” 
this idea must not be confounded with any other. Most of the commentators 
(Augustin, Bede, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, De Wette-Briickner, Neander, Sander, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald, 
etc.) understand by it, according to vv. 9-11, the commandment of brotherly 
love; others, on the other hand (Socinus, Episcopius, Calovius, Schott, 
Liicke, Fritzsche, Frommann, etc.), according to ver. 6, the commandment 
of following Christ. These two views seem. to be opposed to one another, 
but they really are so only if we assume that John here wants to emphasize 
a single special commandment —in distinction from other commandments. 


Ver. 7. ἀγαπητοί. 


1 Semler paraphrases: “Si quis gloriatur, 
se suamque doctrinam semper convenisse cum 
doctrina illa Christi, is sane debet etiam in 
humanae vitae modo non Judaismum prae- 
ferre’’ (!). 

2 Ebrard wrongly maintains that ἐντολή is 
‘a truth including directly in itself practical 
requirements.”? Only the practical require- 
ments contained in a truth can be — when 


regarded as a unity — called ἐντολή, but not 
the truth which contains them in itself. It is 
true, the demand of faith in the message of 
salvation may be described as ἐντολή, but not 
the message of salvation itself; here, however, 
the context forbids us to take the expression 
in that sense (as Weiss), since neither in what 
precedes nor in what immediately follows is 
there a demand for faith expressed. 


CHAP. If. 7, 505 
This supposition, however, is erroneous; the command to keep the 
commandments (or the word) of God after the example of Christ, or to 
walk in the light, is no other than the command to love one’s brother. 
From chap. i. 5 on, John is speaking not of different commandments, but of 
the one general commandment of the Christian life which results from the 
truth that God is light. It is to this commandment that reference is made 
when John, in order to bring it home to his readers, says: οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν 
γράφω ὑμῖν, so that by ἐντολῆ he does not indicate a commandment which he 
then for the first time is about to mention, but the commandment which 
he has already spoken of in what precedes (only not merely in ver. 6), but 
defines more particularly in what follows, namely, in regard to its concrete 
import. Of this commandment John says, that it is not an ἐντολὴ καινῆ ; 3 
in what sense he means this, the following words state: ἀλλ᾽ ἐντολὴν παλαιάν, 
ἣν εἴχετε an’ ἀρχῆς ; it is not new, but old, inasmuch as his readers did not first 
receive it through this writing, but already had it, and indeed dm’ ἀρχῆς, 1.6.» 
from the very beginning of their Christian life; comp. chap. iii. 11; 
2 John 5, 6; and, for the expression ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ver. 24 (Calvin, Beza, Socinus, 
Episcopius, Piscator, Hornejus, Lange, Rickli, Liicke, De Wette-Briickner, 
Sander, Neander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald, Braune, 
etc.). The imperfect εἴχετε, instead of which we should expect the present, 
either refers back to the time before John had come to his readers, or 
is to be explained: “which ye hitherto already had.” ' The latter is the 
more probable. Some commentators weaken this interpretation, which is 
demanded by the context, and hold that John calls the commandment 
(namely, “the commandment of love”) an old one, because it was already 
given by Moses; thus Flacius, Clarius, etc.; the Greek commentators even 
go beyond that, and refer it at once to this, that it was written from the 
very beginning in the heart of man; the latter Baumgarten-Crusius 
maintains, and says: “here, therefore, the ethics of Christianity are 
represented as the eternal law of reason,” in which he explains ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς 
“from the beginning of the history of man,” and regards “ye as men” as 


1 This view is in accordance with that of 
Diisterdieck, who rightly remarks: ‘ The 
solution of the problem lies in this, that the 
holy command to walk as Christ walked, fully 
and essentially resolves itself into the com- 
mand of brotherly love;” it is also accepted 
by Braune. The objection of Briickner, that 
brotherly love is only a principal element, 
and not the complete fulfilment of following 
Christ, can only be regarded as valid if 
brotherly love is not viewed in its full, com- 
plete character; comp. John xiii. 34, and also 
the statement of the Apostle Paul: πλήρωμα 
νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη, Rom. xiii. 10.— The instances 
adduced by Ebrard against the reference to 
brotherly love can only have any force if the 
commandment which prescribes this is dis- 
tinguished, as a special one, from the com- 
mand to walk in light. 


2 Certainly what John here says reminds 
us of the statement of Christ in John xiii. 34; 
nor can it be denied that John was here 
thinking of that, as well as in the passage 
2 John 5; but from this it does not follow that 
οὐκ ἐντολ. Katy. γράφω ὑμῖν does not refer to 
what precedes, but only to what comes after 
(ver. 9). 

3 In the scholia of Matthaei it is thus put: 
εἰ μὲν ᾿Ιουδαίοις ταῦτα γράφει, εἰκότως, τὴν περὶ 
ἀγάπης ἐντολὴν οὐ καινὴν εἶναι φησί. πάλαι γὰρ 
αὐτὴν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ἐπηγγείλατο. Ei δὲ οὐκ 
᾿Ιουδαῖοι ἦσαν, μήποτ᾽ οὖν ἐντολὴ παλαιά... . 
ἐστὶν ἡ κατὰ τὰς φυσικὰς ἐννοίας φιλικὴ διάθεσις, 
πάντες γὰρ φύσει ἥμερα καὶ κοινωνικὰ ζῶα ὄντες 
ἀγαπῶσι τοὺς πλησίον. — Oecumenius and 
Theophylact combine the two together, hold- 
ing that the Epistle was addressed to Jewish 
and Gentile Christians. 


506 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 
the subject of εἴχετε. -- ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε. This addition 
serves for a more particular definition of the preceding; 7 παλαιῶ is repeated 
in order to accentuate this idea more strongly. By εἴχετε it was only stated 
that the readers were in possession of the commandment; now the apostle 
defines it more particularly in this respect, that it is the word (not “the 
chief substance of the word,” De Wette) which they had heard (comp. 
ver. 24, iii. 11, iv. 3), which, therefore, was proclaimed unto them (comp. 
chap. i. 2, 3), namely, by the apostolic preaching. The clause is therefore 
not to be taken, as Baumgarten-Crusius holds, as a correction of γράφω: “ not 
by im was it first given; it is from the beginning of Christianity, the λόγος, 
ὃν ἠκούσατε, namely, from Christ;” for ἠκούσατε does not refer directly to 
γράφω (Bengel), but to eiyere.1 On the addition ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς (Rec.) after ἠκούσατε, 
which Ewald regards as genuine, see the critical notes. 

Ver. 8. πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν, «.7.A.]. Almost all commentators hold that 
the ἐντολὴ καινῆ is the same ἐντολῆ as was the subject of ver. 7; differently 
Ebrard, who explains as follows: “ With ver. 7 begins a new section which 
continues to ver. 29, in which the leading thought is the position of the 
readers to the light as one which was already shining; by évr. παλαιά is 
meant the clause, chap. i. 5: ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι; by ἐντ. καινῇ, on the other hand, 
the following clause: ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει; 5 the 
relative clause 6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς, x.7.A.. belongs, by apposition, to the following 
sentence: ὅτι 7 σκοτία, x.7.4,, and states to what extent the essential true 
light has already begun to shine, namely, the fact that the light already 
shines has a double sphere in which it is ἀληθές, ie., actually realized, 
first in Christ, but then also ἐν ὑμῖν, i.e., in the Ephesian readers them- 
selves, and equally in all true Christians.” This explanation is, however, 
incorrect ; for (1) the truth ἡ σκοτία παράγεται, «.7.4., can just as little be 
called an ἐντολῇ as the sentence ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι (See on ver. 7); (2) the rela- 
tive clause, if it was to be a preceding apposition to ἡ σκοτία, x.7.A., would 
have had to come after ὅτι ; according to the structure of the verse, 6 must 
necessarily be connected with what precedes; (9) it is a false idea, that that 
which the clause ὅτι ἡ σκοτία expresses was actually realized in Christ; the 
incorrectness of this idea is concealed in Ebrard’s interpretation in this way, 
no doubt, that he gives to ἐν αὐτῷ a different relation from that which he 
gives ἐν ὑμῖν, and changes the present παράγεται into the perfect.? Nor is the 


1 Wolf assumes a peculiar antithesis be- 
tween the two sentences: ‘ Ratio fortassis 
aliqua reddi possit, cur ἔχειν et ἀκούειν ἀπ᾽ 
ἀρχῆς sibi invicem subjungantur. Prius enim 
ad illos spectaverit, qui ex Judaeis ad Christum 
conversi erant; illi enim jam ante praeceptum 
hoe de amore mutuo ex lege Mosis et pro- 
phetis cognitum habebant; posterius respiciet 
ex-Gentiles, qui idem inter prima evyangeli- 
cae doctrinae praecepta acceperant;” this 
amounts, partly, if not altogether, to what the 
Greek commentators adduce for explanation 
of the expression παλαιά. The arbitrariness of 
such an antithesis is self-evident. 


2 The same view is found in Castellio, 
Socinus, and Bengel. The latter remarks on 
ἐντολὴν καινήν: ““ Praeceptum novum, quod 
nobis nunc primum in hac epistola scribitur; ”’ 
and on ὅτι : ‘* Quod hoc est illud praeceptum,” 
to which he then very strangely adds: ‘‘amor 
fratris, ex luce.” 

8 Ebrard says: ‘‘The eternally existing 
light is one which has already appeared ev 
αὐτῷ, in so far as in Christ the light objectiv- 
ized has arisen for the world and has overcome 
the darkness, and ἐν ὑμῖν in so far as also 
subjectively to the readers the light of the 
gospel has arisen, and they also subjectively 


CHAP. II. 8. 507 


opinion that we are to understand by évr. παλ. the commandment of walking 
in light, and by évr. καινῇ, on the other hand, that of brotherly love (ver. 9), 
tenable, because these commandments, according to their import, are not 
two distinct commandments, but one and the same commandment. Still 
more unjustifiable is the assumption of S. Schmid, that-in ver. 7 the funda- 
mental law of Christianity, namely, justification by faith, but here the com- 
mandment of Christian sanctification, is meant; and that of Weiss, that by 
ἐντολή, ver. 7, is to be understood the evangelical message of salvation, but 
here the commandment of love. The apostle, having in view here the same 
commandment as in ver. 7, says: “ Again a new commandment I write unto you, 
which thing is true in Him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the 
true light now shineth.” The relative clause 6 ἐστιν, «.7.4., serves not merely to 
establish the statement that the commandment is a new one (Socinus, Fla- 
cius, Morus, Hornejus, De Wette-Briickner, Liicke, ed. 2 and 3, ed. 1 of this 
commentary, Erdmann, etc.);1 but the apostle thereby describes the com- 
mandment, yet not in a material way, so that 6 would be referred to the 
substance of it (Oecumenius, Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Semler, From- 
mann, Diisterdieck, etc.),? but only in a formal way, as that which is actually 
fulfilled in Christ and in his readers; as the commandment in ver. 7 was 
also only defined in a formal way by ἣν εἴχετε dn’ ἀρχῆς. --- ὅ ἐστιν... ἐν ὑμῖν is 


have been drawn from darkness unto light.” 
By ἐν ὑμῖν he means, therefore, the readers, in 
whon, i.e., in whose souls, the transition from 
darkness to light has taken place; by ev 
αὐτῷ, however, not Christ, in whom, but the 
world, for which that has happened objectively, 
inasmuch as Christ entered as the light into 
the darkness of the world. Quite a different 
meaning, therefore, is here assigned to ἐν αὐτῷ 
from that which is given to ἐν ὑμῖν, as the dif- 
ference in the relation from the antithesis of 
** objective’ and *‘ subjective” clearly shows. 
—It is not merely the change of the present 
παράγεται into the perfect that is the cause of 
this treatment, for it appears elsewhere in the 
commentary, —thus on p- 148: ‘that which is 
true in Christ and in you, that the darkness 
is past,” ete.; p. 150: “similar to the new 
announcement, that the darkness is past,” etc. ; 
p. 155 : ‘It is the truth, that the darkness is 
past ;” against which, on the other hand, 
παράγεται is correctly explained on p. 159: 
“the darkness is passing by, is in a state of 
passing away, of disappearing.” 

1 For if 6 ἐστιν, x.7.A., is, according to the 
intention of the apostle, to be referred to 
the idea of the newness of the commandment, 
he would —first, have given this idea a more 
independent form than he has given it as a 
simple attribute of the object ἐντολήν depend- 
ing on γράφω; and, secondly, not have given 
the confirmation of the statement (that the 
commandment is a new one) in a sentence 
which does not so much show the truth of 


this idea as merely state the sphere in which 
that statement is true; to which may be 
added, that the idea so resulting is itself so 
indistinct, that it requires, in order to be un- 
derstood, an explanatory circumlocution, such 
as: ‘that the commandment is a new one has 
its truth in Christ, inasmuch as it did not exist 
before Him,” etc. (ed. 1 of this comm.). Be- 
sides, an emphasis unwarranted by the context 
is placed on the idea of the newness of the 
commandment, especially if it is thought that 
the following ov again serves to establish the 
thought expressed in the confirmatory clause 
(Liicke, De Wette, Briickner). 

2 Diisterdieck, it is true, approves of 
Knapp’s paraphrase, which agrees with the 
above explanation: πάλιν (ws) ἐντολὴν Kacy. 
yp. ὑμῖν τοῦτο ὃ ἐστιν ἀληθές, K.T.A.; but, with 
the idea of ἃ constructio ad sensum, refers ὃ to 
the preceding ἐντολήν, so that this forms the 
object of γράφω, which by the relative clause 
obtains its more particular definition. In 
opposition to this construction, De Wette has 
rightly observed that it has grammatical diffi- 
culty. When Diisterdieck, in reply to Liicke’s 
objection, that with that interpretation it 
would need to run ἢ ἐστιν ἀληθής, says that 
it is not the ἐντολή itself as such, but its 
substance in Christ, etc., that has been fulfilled, 
Ebrard’s observation is a sufficient answer: 
“That which is required in the ἐντολή is 
nothing else than just the ἐντολή itself; the 
requirement itself is fulfilled in Christ when 
its substance is fulfilled in Him.” 


508 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

the object belonging to γράφω, and ἐντολὴν καινήν is to be taken as the accusative 
of more particular definition; this construction of it is found in Ewald, only 
he explains ἐν αὐτῷ incorrectly by “in the last-mentioned (in ver. 7) word of 
God;” most recently it has been accepted by Braune with the interpretation 
here given. The sense accordingly is: that which is already true, ie., ful- 
filled, in Christ and in you, namely, the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. John 
xv. 10, where Christ says of Himself, ἐγὼ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ πατρός μου teTHpyKa), 
I write unto you as a new commandment.! With this view it is self-evident 
that the apostle calls the old commandment a new one only in so far as he 
writes it anew to them. It is true, a different reference has usually been 
given to καινῇ, by understanding it either of the constant endurance of the 
commandment of love,? or to indicate that this commandment first entered 
into the world along with Christianity — whether emphasis was put more 
upon the substance of it (Liicke, De Wette, ed. 1 of this comm.), or upon 
the mere time of it (Diisterdieck) ;* but these constructions, not being indi- 
cated in the context, are purely forced. —On πάλιν, Erasmus says: et con- 
trarictatem declarat et iterationem; hic autem non repetitionis sed contrarietatis” 
est declaratio; with this interpretation almost all commentators agree, 
referring πάλιν to the idea évr. καινῆν; but an antithetical construction is 
foreign to the word; it is = “again, once more,” is to be connected with 
γράφω, and is explained by the fact that the readers have already heard the 
commandment, nay, even are already fulfilling it. Liicke and De Wette 
connect it directly with the verb, but in such a way that even they give to 
it an antithetical reference.*— éoriv ἀληθές]. ἀληθῆς signifies here the actual 
reality, as in Acts xii. 9 (see Meyer on this passage). — ἐν αὐτῷ]. ἐν is to be 
retained in its special meaning, not = “respectu, in reference to,” nor is it 
used “of the subject in which something true is to be recognized as true 
(ver. 8)" (De Wette), for there is no mention here of any knowledge. That 
by αὐτός here not God (Jachmann), but Christ is to be understood, is shown 


1 That John places before his readers anew 
as a commandment that which already has 
been fulfilled in them, is clearly not more 
strange than that he declares to them truths of 
which he himself says that they know them 
already (comp. ver. 21). Briickner admits 
that the construction here advocated is simple 
and clear, but groundlessly thinks that ‘‘ the 
strangeness of this form of speech” is not 
mitigated by the reference to ver, 21. 

2 Calvin: ‘‘ Novum dicit, quod Deus quoti- 
die suggerendo veluti renovat; Joannes negat 
ejusmodi esse doctrinam de fratribus dili- 
gendis, quae tempore obsolescat: sed perpetuo 
vigere.” 

3 On the basis of the right view of am’ ἀρχῆς, 
ver. 7, we find the nature of the newness of 
the commandment indicated just in this; this, 
however, is only the case if the temporal 
reference is retained in its purity. This 
Diisterdieck indeed insists on; but this relation 
has only force if we regard at the same time 


the substance of the commandment, as Diister- 
dieck does. But nothing in the context indi- 
cates this new substance, and it is therefore 
very differently defined by the commentators. 
4 Liicke does so when he says: ‘‘In ver. 8, 
John continues correctingly thus: Again a 
new commandment I write unto you.” (In 
the edition of 1851, Liicke agrees with the 
usual acceptation: “ Again—in contrast —a 
new commandment I write unto you;” see 
ed. 3, p. 249, note 1.)— De Wette does not 
expressly give his opinion about πάλιν; but 
when he thinks that John should properly 
have written: ‘‘ again a new commandment I 
call it,” and when he then paraphrases it: 
‘©The commandment of love is an old and 
long-known one to you; but (as it is altogether 
revealed as a new one by Christ) for you who 
partake in the newness of life it is in an 
especial manner a new one,” the antithetical 
reference is clearly brought out by him also. 


CHAP. II. 8. 509 
by the context. Socinus incorrectly explains ἐν αὐτῷ = per se ac simpliciter. 
On the point that ἡμῖν is not to be read, see the critical notes. Grotius 
unjustifiably understands by ἡμῖν the apostles. —Neander has a wrong 
conception of the relation of ἐν αὐτῷ and ἐν ὑμῖν when he explains: “it takes 
place in reference to Christ and in reference to the church, therefore in 
reference to their mutual relationship to one another.” — ὅτε ἡ σκοτία, x.7.A.]. 
ὅτι is not used declaratively, nor in such a way as to be dependent on ἀληθές 
(“it is true that the darkness,” etc.), or on ἐντολῆν (Castellio, Socinus, Beng- 
el, Ebrard), — to both these views the structure of the verse is opposed, — 
but causally; this is rightly perceived by most of the commentators; but it 
is incorrect when they connect it with the immediately preceding 6 ἐστιν 
ἀληθὲς, x.t.2., for the double-membered clause, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία. . . φαίνει, being a 
confirmatory clause, does not stand in a corresponding relationship to the 
thought, 6 ἐστιν da. . . . ὑμῖν, which it is intended to confirm.! By ὅτι, «.r.2., 
the apostle rather states the reason why he writes to them ‘as a new com- 
‘mandment that which is true in Christ and in them (Diisterdieck, Braune) ; 
this reason is the already commenced disappearance of darkness, and shining 
of the true light. The contrasted words 7 σκοτία and τὸ φὼς τὸ ἀληθινόν are to be 
taken in an ethical sense (Braune);? the former idea signifies the darkness 
which consists in error and sin, as it exists outside the fellowship with God ; 
the latter, the light which consists in truth and holiness, as it proceeds from 
Christ, who Himself is the true light. It is incorrect to understand here by 
τὸ φὼς τὸ ἀλ., Christ Himself (Bengel, Erdmann), as the contrast with ἡ σκοτία 
shows. ἀληθινός is an expression which is almost confined to the writings of 


1 With this connection of the thoughts, the — rightly establishes the proposition that the 


double-membered clause ott ἡ σκοτία. .. 
φαίνει must confirm both ἐστιν aa, ἐν αὐτῷ and 
also ἐστιν aA, ἐν ὑμῖν. Now, when Liicke 
makes the apostle to say, as a proof that the 
commandment to walk in light shows itself in 
Christ and in his readers as a new one: ‘ Not 
only in Christ Himself (ἐν αὐτῷ) has the true 
light appeared, but it has also shed itself 
abroad, dispelling the darkness in the minds 
of his readers (ἐν ὑμῖν), and is shining in 
them,” he attributes the thought really ex- 
pressed by the apostle (ἡ σκοτία... φαίνει) 
only to ἐν ὑμῖν ; while to ἐν αὐτῷ, on the other 
hand, he attributes an idea which the apostle 
has not expressed. — Briickner says: ‘* The ev 
αὐτῷ refers to καὶ τὸ φῶς, κιτιλ,., the ἐν ὑμῖν 
rather to ἡ σκοτία, x.T.A.;’’ but this reference 
of the one member of the confirmatory clause 
to the one element of the thought to be 
confirmed must be regarded as unjustified, 
although Briickner thinks “it can easily be 
imagined that the apostle in the one part of 
the confirmation had in view rather the latter, 
and in the other rather the former part of the 
clause to be confirmed,’ for such a different 
reference is in no way hinted at; besides, ἤδη 
is here altogether left out of view. Diisterdieck 


whole sentence aAn@. . . . ὑμῖν is to be 
regarded as confirmed by the who/e sentence 
ὅτι ἡ OK, . . . φαίνει; but when he then, in 
interpretation, says: ‘* Already the darkness 
is dispelled by the true light, which shines in 
truth in Christ and in His believers (in so far, 
namely, as brotherly love attained its most 
perfect manifestation in the walk of Christ, 
and is exercised by believers also),’’ it is only 
the second part of the confirmatory clause that 
is referred by him to ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, but 
not the first part; and this indeed is quite 
natural, since in Christ a disappearance of 
darkness ig not imaginable. 

2 Tt was to be expected that Weiss here also 
denies to the ideas σκοτία and φῶς the ethical 
meaning, and wants to be understood by the 
former only error, by the latter only the 
knowledge of God. Weiss himself, however, 
views them both so that they are of ethical — 
and not merely theoretical — character; and, 
moreover, as he admits that with the former 
error sin, and with the latter knowledge 
holiness, is necessarily connected, it is so 
much the more arbitrary to allege that John, 
in the use of these ideas, utterly ignored this 
necessary connection. 


510 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


John; outside them it is only found in Luke xvi. 11, 1 Thess. i. 9, and three 
times in the Epistle to the Hebrews; it describes the light of which the 
apostle is speaking as the eternal, essential light, of which the earthly light 
is merely the transitory reflection; see especially Neander on this passage. 
— παράγεται is translated by the Vulgate as perfect: quoniam tenebrae transi- 
erunt; similarly by Luther: “the darkness is past;” and Calvin directly 
says: Praesens tempus loco Praeteriti. This, however, is arbitrary; the 
present is to be retained as such; it is used in the same sense as in 1 Cor. 
vii. 31: παράγει (see Meyer on this passage), so that we must interpret: “the 
σκοτία is in the state of passing away.” It is unnecessary to take παράγεται, 
with Bengel, with whom Sander and Besser agree, as passive (Bengel: non 
dicit παράγει transit, sed παράγεται traducitur, commutatur, ita ut tandem 
absorbeatur) ; it is more natural to regard it as the middle form with intran- 
sitive meaning. With the meaning “is in the state of passing,” corresponds 
the particle ἤδη with φαίνει, which is not = “now” (Luther), but by which 
the moment is described in which the darkness is retreating before the light, 
at which therefore neither has the darkness already completely disappeared, 
nor is the light completely dominant. Most of the commentators, both the 
older and more recent (Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette-Briickner, Liicke, 
Sander, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Ebrard), take this as referring to Christian- 
ity in general, in so far as by it, as the true light, the old darkness is 
being ever more and more overcome; but by the word ἤδη the apostle shows 
that in these words he is looking forward to a future time at which that 
victory will have been completely won, and which he regards as close at hand 
(so also Braune). The moment in which he writes this is in his eyes, 
therefore, no other than that which immediately precedes the second coming 
of Christ, and which He Himself in ver. 18 calls the ἐσχάτη ὥρα, in which it 
is of the greater importance for Christians, by keeping the commandment, 
to show themselves as children of the light. The same train of thought 
essentially occurs here as afterwards in vy. 15-18; compare also the Pauline 
ἡ νὺξ προέκοψεν, ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤγγικε, Rom. xiii. 12. 

Vv. 9-11. Further definition of the life of light as life in love. — Ver. 9. 
ὁ λέγων; the same form as in ver. 4, to which the structure of the whole 
verse is very similar. ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι stands in close relation to what imme- 
diately precedes; although he alone is in the light who lives in fellowship 
with Christ, and belongs to the Church of Christ, yet τὸ φῶς describes neither 
Christ Himself (Spener, etc) nor “the church as the sphere within which 
the light has operated as illuminating power” (Ebrard). Chap. i. 6, 7, 
may be compared. —In contrast with καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν is ver. 10, ὁ 
ἀγαπῶν ἀδ. αὐτοῦ, in which the apostle states the substance of the τηρεῖν τὸν 
λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ after the example of Christ. As φῶς and σκοτία, so μισεῖν τ, ad, 
and ἀγαπᾶν τ. ad. exclude each other; they are tendencies diametrically 


1 Rickli: “John says this of the ¢ime in truth, is already shining; . . . already the 
which they are living, and in which the great great morning is dawning for mankind. When 
work of the Lord had had a wonderful, rapid the Lord shall return, then shall be the perfect 
progress of development. The true Light, the day of God. Towards this manifestation all 
Lord in His perfect manifestation of divine believers walk.” 


CHAP. II. 9-11. 511 


opposed to one another; human action belongs either to the one or to the 
other; that which does not belong to the sphere of the one, falls into that of 
the other; Bengel: ubi non est amor, odium est: cor non est vacuum. Here 
also John speaks absolutely, without taking into consideration the imperfect 
state of the Christian, as is seen in the hesitations between love and hatred. 
— τὸν ἀδελφόν Grotius interprets: sive Judaeum, sive aliegenam; fratres omnes 
in Adamo sumus; similarly Calov, J. Lange, ete. ; by far the greatest num- 
ber of commentators understand thereby fellow-Christians. Apart from its 
exact meaning and the wider meaning = brethren of the same nation (Acts 
xxiii. 1; Heb. vii. 5), ἀδελφός is used in the N. T. generally, in Acts and in 
the Pauline Epistles always, to denote Christians; but in many passages it 
is also = ὁ πλησίον or ὁ ἕτερος; thus in Matt. v. 22 ff., vii. 3 ff., xviii. 35; 
Luke vi. 41 ff.; Jas. iv. 11, 12 (in Matt. v. 47 it describes our friendly 
neighbor). In the Gospel of John it is only used in the sense of relation- 
ship, except in chap. xx. 17, where Christ calls His μαθηταί “ οἱ ἀδελφοί pov,” 
and in chap. xxi. 23, where of dé. is a name of Christians. If, therefore, 
according to the usus loquendi of the N. T., ὁ ἀδελφός may certainly be = ὁ 
πλησίον, yet in the Epistles of John, according to chap. iii. 11 (comp. Gospel 
of John xiii. 34, xv. 12; besides, especially with iii. 16, comp. Gospel of 
John xv. 13; there ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς τιθέναι ; here ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων 
αὑτοῦ), and according to chap. v. 1 (where the dé, is specifically called a 
γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ), We must understand by it the Christian brother; so 
that John, therefore, is speaking, not of the general love towards men, but 
of the special relationship of Christians to one another; comp. the distine- 
tion in 2 Pet. i. 7; Gal. vi. 10. —éwe ἄρτι ; “until now,” refers back to ἤδη, 
ver. 9; the meaning is: although the darkness is already shining, such a 
one is nevertheless still (adhuc) in darkness; on this peculiarly N. T. 
expression, see Winer, p. 439 (E. T., 470); A. Buttmann, p. 275 (E. T., 
320); there is no reason for supplying, “even if he were a long time a 
Christian” (Ewald). With the ἐν τ. ox. ἐστιν is contrasted (ver. 10), ἐν τῷ 
φωτὶ μένει; see on this ver. 6.1 That the “exercise of brotherly love is 
itself a means of strengthening the new life ” (Ebrard), is not contained in 
the idea μένει. Even if the idea of ver. 10—in relation to that of the 9th 
verse — is brought out more distinctly by μένει, this is much more done by the 
words καὶ σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῶ οὐκ ἔστιν. σκάνδαλον appears in the N. T. only in 
the ethical signification = “offence,” i.e., that which entices and tempts to 
sin; in the case of ἐν αὐτῷ, the preposition ἐν is generally either left unno- 
ticed by the commentators (Grotius says, appealing to Ps. cxix: est meto- 
nymia et ἐν abundat. Sensus: ille non impingit), or changed in meaning; De 
Wette : “in his case (for him) there is no stumbling; comp. John xi. 9 ff.;” 
similarly Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, etc.; Liicke even says: “ἐν αὑτῷ 
can here only signify the outer circle of life,” because “the σκάνδαλα for the 


1 KGstlin incorrectly finds the reason why __ the apostle is not speaking here at all; but the 
he who loves his brother remains in the light, truth of his statement lies rather in this, that 
in this, ‘that the Christian life of the indi- love and light are essentially connected with 
vidual requires for its own existence the one another. 
support of all others.’’ Of such a support ; 


512 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Christian lie in the world, and not in him;” with him Sander agrees. For 
such changes there is no ground, since, in the usage of the word, the figure 
(the snare, or rather the wood that falls in the snare) has quite given place 
to the thing; and it is therefore unnecessary to say, with Diisterdieck, that 
“in the expression ἐν αὐτῷ the thing itself penetrates into the otherwise 
figurative form of speech ;” the offence may be outside a man, but it may 
be in him also; comp. Matt. v. 29, 30. The preposition ἐν is here to be 
retained in its proper meaning (Diisterdieck, Ewald, Braune). The sense 
is: In him who loves his brother, and thus remains in the light, there is 
nothing which entices. him to sin. Some commentators refer σκάνδαλον to 
. the temptation of others to sinning; so Vatablus: nemini offendiculo est; 
Johannsen: “he gives no offence; ” Ebrard: “there is nothing in them by 
which they would give offence to the brethren,” etc.; but in the context 
there is no reference to the influence which the Christian exercises upon 
others, and if John had had this relationship in his mind, he would certainly 
have expressed it;? this is decisive also against Braune, who would retain 
both references. Paulus quite unwarrantably refers ἐν αὐτῷ to τὸ φώς: “in 
that light nothing is a stumbling-block.” — The beginning of the 11th verse 
repeats, in a form antithetical to ver. 10, that which was said in ver. 9; but 
with further continuation of the ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστίν. ---- The first subordinate 
clause runs, καὶ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ. The difference of the two clauses does 
not consist in this, that the representation passes over from the less figura- 
tive (ἐστί) to the more figurative (περιπατεῖ) (Liicke); for, on the one hand, 
περιτατεὶν is so often used of the ethical relationship of man, that it is 
scarcely any longer found as a figurative expression; and, on the other hand, 
the connection by καί shows that there is a difference of idea between the 
two expressions; this has been correctly thus described by Grotius: priori 
membro affectus (or better, habitus, Sander), altero actus denotatur (similarly 
De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Braune). Both the being (the condition) 
and the doing (the result) of the unloving one belong to darkness; comp. 
Gal. y. 25. The second subordinate clause, καὶ οὐκ olde ποῦ ὑπάγει, is closely 
connected with περιπατεῖ ; ποῦ, properly a particle of rest, is in the N. T. 
frequently connected with verbs of motion; comp. John vii. 35, xx. 2, 13; 
Heb. xi. 8; in the Gospel of John especially, as here, with ὑπάγειν ; see John 
iii. 8, viii. 14, οἷο. ; in John xii. 35 it runs exactly as here: ὁ περιπατῶν ἐν τῇ 
σκοτίᾳ οὐκ olde ποῦ ὑπάγει. The translation “where he is going,” is false, for 
ὑπάγειν is not “to go,” but “to go to.” To the unloving one, the goal whither 
he is going on his dark way, and therefore the direction of his way, is 
unknown. By this goal it is not exactly the final goal, i.e., condemnation 
(Cyprian : it nescius in gehennam, ignarus et caecus praecipitatur in poenam), 
that is to be thought of, for the subject according to the context is not 
punishment; but by the figurative expression the apostle wants to bring out 
that the unloving one, not knowing whither, follows the impulse of his own 


1 When Ebrard finds no obstacle in the find no obstacle in the thought that there is 
thought that he who loves his brother does not nothing in him which becomes an offence to 
by any act give offence to others, he should himself. 


CHAP. II. 12-14. 51S 


selfish desire: he does not know what he is doing, and whither it tends. As 
a confirmation of this last idea, the apostle further adds: ὅτι ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσε 
τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ; τυφλοῦν does not mean “to darken,” but “to make blind, 
to blind ;’’ this idea is to be retained, and is not, with Liicke and others, to 
be enfeebled by an interpolated tamquam, as (“in the darkness they are as 
if blind”), by which the clause loses its meaning; the apostle wants to 
bring out, that, inasmuch as the unloving one walks in the darkness, the 
sight of his eyes is taken from him by this darkness, so that he does 
not know, etc. He who lives in sin is blinded by sin, and therefore does not 
know whither his sin is leading him; comp. John xii. 40 and 2 Cor. iv. 4. 
Vy. 12-14. After the apostle has depicted the Christian life in its essen- 
tial features, he passes on to exhortation. To this these verses form the 
introduction, in which the apostle assures his readers that their Christianity 
is the ground of his writing. The motive of this, which explains also the 
form of expression, is the earnest longing which inspires the apostle, that 
his readers may take home to themselves the following exhortation. —The 
apostle addresses them under four different names: rexvia and παιδία, πατέρες, 
νεανίσκοι. By the two latter names they are distinguished according to the 
two corresponding degrees of age;! in the case of πατέρες the proper mean- 
ing is not to be strictly retained, but in contrast to νεανίσκοι it is = γέροντες 
or mpeoGirepor, the members of the church who are already in advanced age; 
thus Erasmus, Calvin, Socinus, Morus, Carpzov, Lange, Paulus, De Wette- 
Briickner, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc. — The νεανίσκοι are the younger 
members of the church; Calvin: tametsi diminutivo utitur, non tamen dubium 
est, quin sermonem ad omnes dirigat, qui sunt in aetatis flore et statu. The view 
of Augustine is to be rejected, that under the three names the same persons 
are addressed whom the apostle only designates differently in different 
aspects: /filioli, quia baptismo neonati sunt; patres, quia Christum patrem et 
antiquum dierum agnoscunt ; adolescentes, quia fortes sunt et validi. So also 
is the opinion that the apostle has in view, not the difference in age, but the 
difference in the degree, or even in the length of existence, of Christian life; 
a Lapide: ¢riplici hoc aetatis gradu triplicem Christianorum in virtute gradum et 
quasi aetatum repraesentat; pueri enim repraesentant incipientes et neophytos ; 
juvenes repraesentant proficientes ; senes perfectos ; similarly Clemens, Oecu- 
menius, further Gagneius, Cajetanus, Russmeyer, Grotius,? etc. Some 
commentators (as Erasmus, Socinus, J. Lange, Myrberg) also refer the two 
expressions, rexvia (ver. 12) and παιδία (ver. 13), to the difference of age, and 
understand by them children, in the proper sense of the word; but more 
prevalent is the view that this is true of παιδία only, and that rexvia, on the 
other hand, is to be regarded as a form of address to all Christians; Calvin: 
haec (namely, ver. 12) adhuc generalis est sententia, mox speciales sententias 
accomodabit singulis aetatibus; similarly Luther, Beza, Calov, Wolf, Baum- 


1 That “the distinction between church classes, quaediscriminanon secundum aetatem, 
leaders and church members appears in the sed secundum gradus diversos ejus profectus, 
distinction between old and young” (Hilgen- qui in Christo est, intelligi debent,” cf. 1 Cor. 
feld), is in no way suggested. xiii. 11, 12; Heb. ν. 18; Eph. iv. 13, 14. 

2 Grotius: ‘“ Partitur Christianos in tres 


514 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, 

garten-Crusius, Sander, Neander, Besser, Ebrard, ete. With the first view 
there arises a wrong succession, namely, children, fathers, young men; 
instead of, children, young men, fathers, or, fathers, young men, children; 
and, moreover, since rexvia is in the Epistle frequently the form of address 
to all readers, and not only with but also without pov (see on ver. 1), so it 
is to be taken here also. Equally, however, by παιδία the apostle addresses 
all readers; as Liicke, De Wette-Briickner, Diisterdieck, Gerlach, Erdmann, 
Ewald, Braune, rightly interpret. If we read before παιδία, with the Recep- 
tus, γράφω ὑμῖν, there certainly results, if παιδία is taken as alluding to chil- 
dren, a more accurate succession: fathers, young men, children; but (1) 
according to almost all authorities we must read, not γράφω, but ἔγραψα, and 
the former reading can only be explained in this way, that παιδία was under- 
stood in its proper sense, and it was thought that this clause must be brought 
into the closest connection with the preceding; (2) then in the repetition of 
the same succession in ver. 14 one member of it is wanting, as the children 
are not mentioned again; and (38) in ver. 18 παιδία is used as a form of 
address in reference to all readers; comp. John xxi. 5. Against the two 
last reasons it might indeed be alleged, with Bengel, Sander, and Besser, 
that from ver. 14 to ver. 17 is still intended for the νεανίσκοις, and that then 
in ver. 18 the address to the children comes in, and that the sequel as far as 
ver. 27 refers to them. But against this construction is: (1) the dissimi- 
larity in the form of the sentences that thereby results; (2) the absence of 
an exhortation addressed to the fathers; (3) the unsuitable reference of the 
warning against false teachers specially to the children, with the additional 
remark, οἴδατε πάντα, ver. 20, and οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε, iva τὶς διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς, even though 
the warning against false teachers in chap. iv. 1 ff. is referred without dis- 
Sinction to all readers ; and, finally (4), the close connection of ver. 17 and 
ver. 18: ὁ κόσμος παράγεται (comp. ver. 8: 7 σκοτία παράγεται), and ἐσχάτη ὥρα 
tori. — According to the true construction of the sentences, they fall into 
two groups; in each group first all Christians, and then specially the older 
and the younger members of the church, are addressed ;} the correctness of 
this construction is shown also by this, that in reference to πατέρες, and 
equally to νεανίσκοι, in both groups the same thing is expressed, but in refer- 
ence to all there are different statements. The arbitrary conjecture of 
Calvin (with whom Wall agrees), that both the clauses of ver. 14 are 
spurious, and interpolated temere by ignorant readers, requires no refutation. 
— The interchange of γράφω with the aorist ἔγραψα is peculiar, and is not to 
be explained by saying that ἔργαψα points to another writing of the apostle, 
whether it be the Gospel (Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schott, Ebrard, 
Hofmann, Schrifibew., 11. 2, § 336; Braune),? or even an earlier Epistle 


1 Even Ebrard regards the second triad as 
beginning with παιδία, although he understands 
by it children in age; there is a glaring incon- 
sistency in this construction. 

2 To this view the following reasons are 
opposed: 1. That if the apostle in ἔγραψα 
had another writing in view than in γράφω, he 


would have expressed this distinctly; 2. That 
thereby the train of thought of the Epistle is 
unduly interrupted, since the assertion of the 
reason why he had written the Gospel is here 
introduced without any connecting link; 3. 
That-then the emphasis contained in the three- 
fold repetition of ἔγραψα remains inexplicable, 


CHAP, II. 12-14. 515 


(Michaelis); both expressions rather refer, as most of the commentators 
have recognized, to this Epistle; not, however, to the same thing, as some 
commentators suppose; thus Bengel, who regards the two expressions as 
synonymous, explains: verbo scribendi ex praesenti in praeterito transposito 
innuit commonitionem firmissimam, which cannot be grammatically justified ; } 
and Diisterdieck, who thinks that the “different import of the present and 
of the aorist can only be sought for in the representation of the writing 
itself; that both times the apostle means the whole Epistle lying before 
him; that by γράφω he represents himself in the immediately present act of 
writing, and by ἔργαψα, on the other hand, his readers, who have received 
the completed Epistle:” opposed to this, however, is the fact that such a 
change of the mere form of representation would certainly be rather trifling. 
The ἔγραψα must be referred to something else than the preceding γράφω; 
yet it is not, with Neander and Erdmann,? to be referred to that which is 
expressed in the clauses beginning with γράφω; for, on the’ one hand, the 
clauses beginning with ἔγραψα have not the form of confirmation, and, on 
the other hand, there is no real cause apparent for the addition of such a 
confirmation; it seems more appropriate when Rickli thinks that γράφω 
refers to what follows, and ἔγραψα to what precedes ;? but opposed to this is 
the fact that ἔγραψα would then stand more naturally before γράφω. The 
correct view has been taken by De Wette, Briickner, and Ewald, who refer 
ἔγραψα to what was already written, and γράφω to the immediate act of 
writing, and hence to the Epistle in general; taking this view, it is quite in 
order for John to write γράφω first, and that he then refers specially by ἔγραψα 
to what has been already written is explained in this way, that this contains 
the principal grounds for the following exhortations and amplifications.4— 
In each part a clause beginning with ὅτι follows the address; this ὅτε is not 


whereas it is perfectly justifiable if the refer- 
ence to something written in this Epistle is 
intended to stimulate the readers more ear- 
nestly to attend to the following exhortation. 
The view of Ebrard, that ‘‘ while the Epistle 
plainly could only be understood by grown 
people,” the Gospel ‘is even for children 
(παιδία) enjoyable and pleasing food,” scarcely 
any one will indorse; although even Braune 
passes this over in silence. 

1 When Buttmann (p. 172 [E. T., 198]) 
thinks that the change of tense is entirely 
occasioned by the need for variation in a sixfold 
repetition of the verb, it may be observed 
against this, that then ver. 14@ would be 
nothing but a repetition of ver. 18a. 

2 Neander explains: “ As John had said: 
‘I write unto you,’ so now he resumes con- 
firmingly what has just been written, and 
says: ‘I have written unto you,’ as if he would 
say: Itisagreed. This that I am now writing 
to you, I have now written, it is settled, I have 
nothing else to say to you, this you must 
always allow to be said to you.’’ Erdmann: 


“Pertinet hoe (ἔγραψα) neque ad superiorem 
epistolam, neque ad quidquam in hac ep. supra 
dictum, sed ad ea, quae modo verbo γράφω 
notata sunt.” Similarly Paulus, who compares 
with this the expression: “ His majesty decrees 
and has decreed.” 

8 Liicke, following Rickli, thought that with 
the first part (ὅτι ἀφέωνται, x.7.A.) corresponded 
the section ii. 15-17 in what follows, and i. 5-7 
in what precedes; with the second part (ὅτι 
ἐγνώκατε, k.T.A.), in the former ii, 18-27, and 
in the latter i. 8-ii. 2; and with the third part 
(ὅτι νενικήκατε, «.7.A.), in the former ii, 28- 
iii. 22, and in the latter ii. 3-11; but he 
afterwards gave up this artificial, cruciform 
construction of the clauses, and explained the 
γράφω with éypayaas belonging to the rhetorie 
of the author. See 3d ed. p. 265, note. 

4 It is only if the signification of the section 
chap. i. 5-ii. 11 for the essentially hortatory 
Epistle is ignored, that it can be said, with 
Ebrard and Braune, that with this view the 
antithesis of γράφω and ἔγραψα becomes a mere 
repetition, or play upon words. 


516 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

objective or declarative = “that” (Socinus, Lange, Russmeyer, Bengel, 
Paulus, Johannsen, Neander, Hilgenfeld, etc.), but causal, “because ” (Cal- 
vin, Beza, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, De Wette-Briickner, Gerlach, Diis- 
terdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard,} etc.). The apostle does not want to say what 
he is writing, but why he is writing to them; comp. especially ver. 20, also 
vv. 21, 27, iii. 5, 14, 15, v. 18-20. The particular Christian experiences of 
his readers form the fundamental presuppositions of the Epistle; it is not 
any thing new that the apostle declares unto them, but he reminds them of 
what they know, so that they may take it more seriously to heart. — The 
first thing that the apostle, addressing all, reminds them of is: ὅτε ἀφέωνται 
ὑμῖν ai ἁμαρτίαι διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. The forgiveness of sins is the basis of all 
Christian life; therefore this is put first.—On the form used here, the 
perfect passive ἀφέωνται, see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Gr., § 97, Anmerk. 3, and 
§ 108, note 1; and Winer, p. 77 (E. T., 80). The Vulgate and Luther 
incorrectly translated it as if it were the present: “are forgiven” (similarly 
Rickli and others; Paulus strangely interprets, deriving it from ἀφ᾽ ἑάω = 
ἀφ᾽ ἑῶνται, dimittuntur). — διά with the accusative is not = “through” (this 
meaning, as is well known, it has only with the genitive, comp. Acts x. 43: 
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν λαβεῖν διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ), but = “for the sake of ;” αὐτοῦ = 
Χριστοῦ, not = Θεοῦ (Socinus, Paulus). According to most of the commen- 
tators, διὰ τ᾿ ὄν. αὐτοῦ refers to the objective ground of the forgiveness of sins, 
and τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ signifies Christ Himself; thus Diisterdieck: “Christ who 
is what His name signifies;”? but this is contrary to the Biblical usus ἰο- 
quendi; if by διά Christ is referred to as the author of salvation, the prepo- 
sition is always construed with the genitive; by διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, therefore, 
it is the subjective ground of forgiveness that is stated (De Wette-Briickner, 
Braune), in this sense: because His name is in you, i.e., because ye believe 
on His name (comp. ver. 23: πιστεύειν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). The name 
is therefore not regarded as empty, but as the form which includes the 
contents and reveals them; so that the subjective ground embraces in itself 
the objective. —In the second group it is said, in regard to the readers of 
the Epistle there called παιδία: yp. ὑμῖν. . . ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα. By ὁ πατήρ 
we are not to understand, with Hornejus, Christ, inasmuch as believers per 
fidem in nomen ejus renati sunt, for such a designation of Christ has the 
constant usus loquendi of Scripture against it, but God; for the name ὁ πατῆρ 
is used here without any more particular definition, with clear reference to 
παιδία, and so God is here so called, not merely on account of His relation- 
ship to Christ, but equally on account of His relationship to those who, by 


1 Luther varies curiously in his translation: 
in ver. 12 he translates ὅτι ‘that,’ in ver. 13 
*‘ for,’ and in ver. 14 again “ that.’? Sander 
thinks that in vv. 14 and 18 ὅτι is used 
causatively, but that in ver. 12 both “ because” 
and ‘‘that’’ are contained in ὅτι. Erdmann 
takes ὅτι in the first three sentences objectively, 
but he leaves it undecided whether in the last 
three sentences it is to be taken objectively or 
causally. 


2 Similarly Sander: ‘‘ God forgives our sins 
for the sake of the offering which Christ made; 
both of these — the person and work of Christ 
—are His name, for the sake of which we 
receive forgiveness.” Besser: ‘‘ for the sake 
of all that Christ is, from the manger to the 
throne.” Ewald: “because Christ is and is 
called Christ.” 


CHAP. II. 12-14. 517 


faith in Christ, have obtained the forgiveness of their sins, and are thereby 
placed in the relationship of children to God. From this it is clear also how 
exactly ὅτι ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν ai ἁμαρτίαι and ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα correspond 
with one another. But in the fact that John ascribes to the believers both 
of these, he testifies to them that they are in possession of the fulness of 
divine peace and of divine truth.—In regard to the πατέρες, the apostle 
brings out the same thing in both groups, vv. 13 and 14: ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν az’ 
ἀρχῆς. If the forgiveness of sins and the knowledge of God are common to 
all, the knowledge of Him who is az’ ἀρχῆς is specially appropriate to the 
older members of the church. When some commentators, as a Lapide, 
Grotius (novistis Deum, qui Senex dierum ; Dan. vii. 9, xiii. 22), and others, 
understand by ὁ dz’ ἀρχῆς God, they ignore the deeper connection which 
exists between the particular ideas; ὁ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς is Christ, but not so called 
because He is the author of Christianity,! but because He is from all 
eternity; ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς is used in the same sense as in chap. i. 1. John brings 
out by this designation of Christ the truth that Christ is subject of their 
knowledge in the quality of His being herein mentioned; it is therefore 
incorrect to understand ἐγνώκατε of the personal knowledge of Him who was 
manifest in the flesh (Bengel, Schoettgen, etc.) ; the word has rather the 
same meaning as in ver. 3.2. John ascribes this knowledge to the fathers, 
because he might with justice assume that they had not contented them- 
selves with a superficial knowledge of Christ in His appearance according 
to the sense, but had looked more deeply into the eternal nature of the 
Lord. —In regard to the young men, it is said in both groups: ὅτι νενικῆκατε 
τὸν πονηρόν; not as if the same were not true also of the older members of 
the church, but John attributes this eminently to the young men, because 
they, in accordance with their age, had just recently obtained this victory, 
and their care therefore must be specially this, not to lose again what had 
been lately won. That ὁ πονηρός is the devil (comp. Matt. xiii. 19, 38, 39; 
Eph. vi. 16; 1 John iii. 12, v. 18, 19), the commentators have rightly 
recognized.2 Carpzov suitably says: Viris fortibus et robustis tribuitur supra 
fortissimum et robustissimum victoria. In the second group some further sub- 
ordinate clauses precede that word, which state the conditions under which 
the young men have attained their victory: ὅτι ἰσχυροῖ ἐστε; ἰσχυροί, “ strong 
in spirit,’ with special reference fo the fight, comp. Heb. xi. 34; Luke xi. 
21; Matt. xii. 29 (Diisterdieck); here also ὅτι is “ because,” not “ that,” thus: 
“ because ye are strong,” not “that ye are to be strong” (Paulus). — This 
conquering power of the young men is not their “own moral strength” 
(Baumgarten-Crusius), but the effect of the Word of God; therefore John 


1 Socinus: ‘ Novi foederis et evangelii the statement of a certain formula about the 


patefacti primum initium;’’ Semler: ‘“ Qui 
inde ab initio auctor fuit bhujus melioris 
religionis.”’ 

2 Neander: “ἃ knowledge of Christ as the 
One who is from the beginning, which results 
from the deeper communion with the person- 
ality of Christ. This is something else than 


person of Christ.” 

3 Even Semler admits this, but then ob- 
serves: ‘* Est usitata Judaeorum descriptio, 
quae gravium peccatorum et flagitiorum ma- 
gistrum diabolum designat, quam descrip- 
tionem non opus est ut Christiani retineant, 
quum non sint ex Judaeis.” 


518 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

adds: καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, and only then brings in καὶ νενικήκατε, 
κιτιλ. --- The individual sentences are simply placed side by side in order to 
let each of them appear the more strongly in its own meaning. The train 
of thought, however, is this, that their strength has its ground in the Word 
of God, which is permanent in them (μένει), and that it is in this power that 
they have attained the victory.1_ This relation is correctly stated by Gro- 
tius, who explains the first καὶ by quia, the second by ob id. — ὁ λύγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
is not = Christ, but the word proceeding from God, i.e., the Gospel, of 
which the personal Christ is no doubt the substance. 

Vy. 15-17. A warning against love of the world, which is directed 
neither specially to the children (Oecumenius: ἐπτόηται γὰρ ἀεὶ τὰ παιδία περὶ 
τὸ φαινόμενον 460), nor specially to the young men (Bengel, Semler, Besser), 
but to all (Bede: omnibus haec generaliter ecclesiae jfiliis scribit). 

Ver. 15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον]. The meaning of ἀγαπᾶν depends on that 
of the idea κόσμος. --- κόσμος is With John eminently an ethical conception = 
mankind, fallen away from God, and of hostile disposition towards Him, 
together with all that it lives for and has made its own; comp. on Jas. i. 27, 
iv. 4 (similarly Gerlach, Besser, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune).? 
The explanations that deviate from this are divided into three leading 
classes: (1) Those in which κόσμος is regarded as a total number of men 
indeed, but in a limited way; either = “the heathen world” (Lange), or, 
more indefinitely, “the mass of common men” (Oecumenius: ὁ συρφετὸς 
ὄχλος, ὃς οὐ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχει ἀγάπην ἐν ἑαυτῷ ; Calovius: homines dediti rebus 
hujus mundi), or “the greater part of men” (Grotius: humanum genus, 
secundum partem majorem, quae in malis actionibus versatur); Storr limits the 
idea here “to that part of the world which the antichristians constituted.” 
(2) Those which understand κόσμος not of the human world itself, but of 
the evil dwelling.in it; so says the Scholiast: κόσμον τὴν κοσμικὴν φιληδονίαν καὶ 
διάχυσιν λέγει, ἧς ἐστὶν ἄρχων ὁ διάβολος ; Luther: “the world, i.e., godlessness 
itself, through which a man has not the right use of the ογθαύασθϑ ; to this 
class belong also the explanations of Calvin, Morus, ὃ. Schmid, Semler ; ὃ 
but in this abstract sense the word never appears elsewhere; and besides, 
taking this view, difficulties appear in the sequel which can only be 


τ Weiss groundlessly finds in what is said κόσμος (ii. 2) the whole human race, as needing 


above an incorrect expression, and thinks that 
not the abiding, but the being of the Word of 
God in them is the ground of their strength; 
for to the Apostle John the being is really 
this only when it is a firm and abiding ex- 
istence. 

2 It might not be incorrect to suppose that 
John, when he here and afterwards in his 
Epistle places the κόσμος in sharp contrast 
with believers, specially understands the sum- 
total of those who, as the light has come into 
the world, love the darkness rather than light 
(Gospel of John iii. 13), and therefore not 
unsaved humanity as such, but those of man- 
kind who resist salvation, while by ὅλος ὁ 


salvation, is to be understood. 

8 Calvin: ‘‘Mundi nomine intellige, quic- 
quid ad praesentem vitam spectat, ubi separa- 
tur a regno Dei et spe vitae aeternae. Ita in 
se comprehendit omne genus corruptelae et 
malorum omnium abyssum.” Morus explains 
κόσμος by: **malum morale;” 8. Schmid by: 
“corruptio peccaminosa;”’ Semler by: ‘ vul- 
gata consuetudo hominum, res corporeas unice 
appetentium.’’ Here may be enumerated also 
the interpretation of Erdmann: ‘‘ Totus com- 
plexus et ambitus mali, quatenus hoc non so- 
lum toti generi humano, verum etiam propter 
hominum a Deo defectionem omnibus rebus 
humanis totique rerum naturae inhaeret.” 


CHAP. II. 15. 519 
overcome by arbitrary interpretations. (3) Those explanations in which 
κόσμος is regarded as the total of perishable (actual) things; these things 
being regarded as purely physical, there lies in the idea κόσμος, in and by 
itself, no ethical meaning, but this appears only through the ἀγαπᾷν which 
is connected with it; the κόσμος as a creature of God is in itself good and 
irreproachable, but the love to the κόσμος, through which man centres his 
affections on it, and makes it the single aim of his activity, is to be blamed, 
because amid all association with earthly things it is not they, but God, 
that must be loved; thus there results for the command, μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν 
κόσμον, certainly an appropriate idea; but what follows in vv. 16 and 17 has 
induced almost all commentators who accept this view to give, nevertheless, 
to the idea κοσμος itself, more or less distinctly, an ethical reference; thus 
Liicke indeed says: “6 κόσμος is, as the sum total of the temporal and 
sensuous, in contrast (!) to the πνεῦμα, always only the objective sphere of 
evil, i.e., to which it tends as ethical direction and disposition,” but 
immediately afterwards he explains the same idea “as the sum total of all 
sensuous appearances, which excite the desire of the senses;” still more 
definitely De Wette says: “the sum total of that which attracts desire, the 
temporal, sensuous, earthly — regarded in contrast with God.” But this 
connection of the ethical reference with the idea of actual things is itself 
rather unsuitable: not in the things, but in man himself, lies the cause of 
the seductive charm which things exercise upon him; besides, it is not 
possible to retain this conception of the word without modification to the 
end of the 17th verse.1 It is true some commentators? distinctly say that 
John here makes a sort of play upon the word; but such an assumption 
does too much violence to the clearness and certainty of the thought for us 
to approve of it. The right view, therefore, is to take ὁ κόσμος here in the 
same sense that the word prevailingly has throughout John’s works, so that 
it signifies the world lying ἐν τῷ rovypd. This κόσμος, this is the meaning 
of the apostle’s warning, is not to be the object of the ἀγάπη of believers. 
From this it follows that ἀγαπᾷν here means neither “to love too much,” 


1 Thus Liicke finds himself compelled in 
the case of πᾶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ to make an ab- 
straction of the things themselves, and to 
understand thereby their ethical reference ; 
and here results the certainly unjustifiable 
thought that this ethical reference of things 
has its origin in the things themselves (ἐκ τοῦ 
κόσμου). Still more decidedly De Wette says 
that in the words ἐκ τοῦ κόσμον ἐστί, ver. 16, 
“ὃ κόσμος is not regarded as the sum total of 
earthly things, but as the sensuous life alien- 
ated from God, or as the sum total of worldly 
men who enjoy this.’”’ Somewhat differently, 
Briickner: ‘‘ that the sum total of earthly evil, 
of the κόσμος, is here regarded rather of real 
things, is clear from the subordinate clause 
μηδὲ τὰ ἐν TH κι; in Ver. 16, the personal aspect 
prevails.” Neander, on ver. 16, equally devi- 


ates from the explanation which he had given 
of ver. 15; in the latter he regards ὁ κόσμος as 
“the world and earthly things,” but in the 
former as “‘the predominating tendency of 
the soul to the world, the growing worldliness 
of the soul, which blends itself with the 
world.” 

2 Thus a Lapide says (after he has assigned 
to the word three meanings, namely (1) ‘‘ ho- 
mines mundani, in his proprie est concupiscen- 
tia;” (2) ‘‘orbis sublunaris, in hoc mundo 
proprie et formaliter non est concupiscentia; 
sed in eo est concupiscentia materialis, i.e., 
objectum concupiscibile;” (3) ‘ipsa mundana 
vita vel concupiscentia in genere’’): ‘* omnibus 
hisce modis mundus hie accipi potest et 
Johannes nunc ad unum, nunc ad allerum res- 
picit; /wdit enim in voce mundus.” 


δ20 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


nor “to love with unhallowed sense,” but love in the strictest sense of the 
word, consisting in a life of inner fellowship.1 — μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ]. As 
κόσμος is an ethical idea, natural objects as such cannot be meant by ra ἐν 
τ. x., but only these in so far as they are taken by the ungodly world into 
its service; or, better, the apparently good things which the world pursues, 
or with which it delights itself, and which therefore belong to it, as riches, 
honor, power, human wisdom, and such like. Ebrard erroneously under- 
stands thereby “the different kinds of sinful impulse, thought, and action, 
e.g., avarice, ambition, sensuality, and such like,” for either of these is 
plainly a love (although a false, unholy love) which cannot itself again be 
- regarded as the object of love. —ééy τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἐστιν, K.T.A,]. 
By this sentence the apostle confirms the previous exhortation, expressing 
the incongruity of love to the κόσμος with the ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός; Bede: Unum 
cor duos tam sibi adversarios amores non capit. By ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός is to be 
understood neither the love of God to us (Luther II., Calovius), nor the 
charitas quam Pater praescribit (Socinus); but, as by far the most of 
commentators (Bede, Beza, Grotius, Vatablus, Spener, etc., and all the 
modern commentators, even Ebrard, despite his erroneous interpretation 
of ver. 5), interpret, love to God.2—TIf πατρός is the correct reading, then 
the name Father is here to be explained from the filial relationship of 
Christians to God, and points to their duty not to love the world, but God. 
— Between the two sorts of ἀγάπη there is the same exclusive contrast as 
between the Θεῷ δουλεύειν and μαμωνᾷ δουλεύειν, Matt. vi. 24. Compare also 
Jas. iv. 4: ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου, ἔχθρα Tod Θεοῦ ἐστίν. 

Ver. 16. Confirmation of the preceding thought that love to the world 
is inconsistent with love to God. — ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ]. Bede incorrectly 
explains the neuter here (as it certainly does appear elsewhere in John) as 
masculine: omnes mundi dilectores non habent nisi concupiscentiam ; most com- 
mentators regard the expression as identical with the foregoing τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ; 
even Diisterdieck, who, in reference to the following ἡ ἐπιθυμία, x.7.4,, thinks 
that a “change occurs from the representation of the objects of the love of 
the world to the subjective desire itself, and its actual manifestations.” 
But even apart from the fact that the assumption of such a change in the 
form is only a makeshift, the expression of the apostle himself is opposed to 
this; for had he not meant by πᾶν τὸ ἐν τ. x. something else than by τὰ ἐν τῷ x., 
he would have put the neuter plural here also. Besides, it must not be over- 
looked why the following, ἡ ἐπιθυμία, «.7.A., could not be the apposition stating 
the sense of πῶν τ. ἐν τ. κ᾿ (Frommann, p. 269).2 Accordingly, the apostle 
means by this expression, all that forms the contents, i.e., the substance of 
the κόσμος ;; its inner life, which animates it (Braune): in what this consists, 


1 Liicke groundlessly thinks the idea of 8 According to Ebrard, πᾶν τὸ ἐν τ. x. i8 a 
love must necessarily be weakened to that resumption of τὰ ἐν τ. κι; a8, however, he 
of ‘*mere longing for,” if by κόσμος the understands by it various kinds of conduct, 


human world is understood. ete., that idea is rightly interpreted by him. 
2 A combination of both interpretations: Myrberg agrees with the interpretation given 
“Amor patris erga suos et filialis erga pa- above. 


trem” (Bengel), is clearly unjustifiable. 


CHAP. II. 16. 621 


the following words state. ἡ ἐπιθυμία τὴς σαρκὸς, κιτ.3.1. Although the ideas 
ἐπιθυμία and ἀλαζονεία in themselves denote a subjective disposition of man, 
yet several commentators think that here not this, but the objective things 
are meant, to which that subjective disposition is directed (Bengel, Russ- 
meyer, Lange, Ewald), or that the otherwise subjective idea disappears into 
the objective (De Wette), or at least that both the subjective and the objec- 
tive are to be thought of together (Lorinus, Briickner). But with the cor- 
rect conception of the ideas κόσμος and πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ there is no apparent 
reason for such an arbitrary explanation, by which violence is done to the 
words of the apostle. — ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός]. The genitive is here not 
the genitive of the object, but, as is the case with émvyia! always in the 
N. T. (except 2 Pet. ii. 10; on Eph. iv. 22 comp. Meyer on this passage), 
the genitive of the subject, hence not “the desire directed towards the flesh,” 
but “the desire which the flesh, i.e., the corrupted sensual nature of man, 
cherishes, or which is peculiar to the flesh;” comp. Gal. v. 17, 7 σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ. 
—Ebrard interprets, describing fhe genitive as that “of quality and refer- 
ence,” for which he wrongly appeals to Eph. iv. 22, 2 Pet. ii. 10: “the 
desire which occurs in the sphere of the flesh;” the apostle scarcely con- 
ceived the idea so indefinitely. The idea may be taken in a broader or in 
a narrower sense; the first view in Liicke (“fleshly, sensuous desire in gen- 
eral, in contrast to πνεύματι περιπατεῖν and ἄγεσθαι; comp. Eph. ii. 3; 1 Pet. 
ii. 11”), De Wette, Neander, Diisterdieck; in the second, the desire of sen- 
suality and drunkenness is specially understood; Augustine: desiderium 
earum rerum, quae pertinent ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus et caetera hujus- 
modi; similarly Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, etc. ; Briick- 
ner limits the idea to “the lust of the flesh in the narrower sense ;” Gerlach 
specially to every sort of pursuit of enjoyment;? and Ebrard to “sexual 
enjoyments.”? The right explanation can be found only on the considera- 
tion of the following expression. — καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, i.e., “the 
desire that is inherent in the eyes, that is peculiar to them;” the expression is 
explained in this way, that the desire of seeing something is attributed to 
the sense of sight itself. This idea also is understood in a broader and 
in a narrower sense. As Liicke calls the eyes, “as it were, the principal 
gates of sensual desire for the external world,” he identifies this idea with 
the preceding one; De Wette does the same, interpreting it (in objective 
aspect): “what the eyes see, and by what sensual desire is excited.” The 
connection by καί, however, which is further followed by a second καί, shows 
that the two ideas are to be definitely distinguished. Accordingly, most 


1 It is arbitrary for Ebrard to say: ἐπιθυμία 
is here — as in John viii. 44; Rom. vii. 8; Gal. 
y- 16, etc. — “that which one lusts after,” 
which indeed he again cancels by translating 
the word by “ dust.” 

2 Even Bengel takes the expression (while, 
however, he understands it of the objective 
things) in a narrower sense: “ Ea quibus pas- 
cuntur sensus, qui appellantur fruitivi: gustus 
et tactus.” 


8 This explanation results for Ebrard from 
the fact that he takes σάρξ here ΞΕ: σῶμα, and 
then describes the idea “ sensual”’ as identical 
with “sexual” (!). 

4 Ebrard strangely thinks that in this view 
the genitive ὀφθαλμῶν is regarded as objective 
genitive = ‘the desire for eyes, i.e., for enjoy- 
ment of the eyes.” 


522 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

commentators justly regard ἐπιθ. τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν as the description of a special 
sort of ἐπιθυμία; thus (against De Wette) Briickner in subjective and objec- 
tive view, “ihe lust of the eyes, and, at the same time, that in which, as 
sensuous and earthly, the eyes delight.” Two different interpretations are 
found with a more exact definition. Very many commentators, as Luther, 
Socinus, Grotius, Hornejus, Estius, Lorinus, Wolf, Clarius, Paulus, Semler, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, οἷο. hold, though with some modifications, 
the expression to be substantially synonymous with πλεονεξία, avaritia. On 
behalf of this interpretation, appeal is made principally to several passages 
of the O. T., and especially to Eccles. iv. 8, v. 10; Prov. xxili. 5, xxvii. 20; 
but erroneously, for even though the eye of the covetous or avaricious man 
looks with pleasure on his treasures, and eagerly looks out for new ones, still 
the possession or acquirement of wealth is to him the chief thing; the striv- 
ing for it, however, is not expressed by the phrase ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. 
Still less justifiable is the explanation of Ebrard, who partly agrees with 
those commentators, but regards the idea of “avarice” as too narrow; and, 
with an appeal to passages such as Ps. xvii. 11, liv. 9, xci. 8, xcii. 12; Prov. 
vi. 17, etc., maintains that by ἡ ἐπιθ. τ. 699. is meant “the whole sphere of 
the desires of selfishness, envy, and avarice, of hatred and revenge (!).” 
Other commentators, on the contrary, retain the reference to the pleasure 
of mere sight, but limit this too much to dramatic performances, etc.; thus 
Augustine: omnis curiositas in spectaculis, in theatris ; similarly, Neander and 
others. Such a limitation, however, is arbitrary; accordingly, others refer 
the expression to other objects of sight;? but it is more correct to take the 
reference to these things in a quite general way, and, with Spener, to inter- 
pret “all sinful desire by which we seek delight in the seeing itself” (so 
also Braune); besides, it is to be observed that ἡ ἐπιθυμία τ. 600, is not the 
desire for wealth, etc., which is excited by the sight (Rickli and others),® 
but the desire of seeing unseemly things, and the sinful pleasure which the 
sight of them affords. Thus, this idea is quite exclusive of the ἐπιθυμία τῆς 
σαρκός; if the latter is taken quite generally, then the lust of the eyes is a 
particular species of it, which the apostle specially mentions in order to meet 
the idea that the desire of seeing any thing can have nothing sinful in it. 
But, having regard to the simple juxtaposition of the ideas by καί, it is more 
correct to suppose that John conceived the ἐπιθ.. τῆς σαρκός not in that general 
sense, but in the particular sense of the “lust for wealth and immoderate 
enjoyment,” so that the two ideas stand to one another in the relation not 
of subordination, but of co-ordination, both being subordinate to the general 
idea of ἐπιθυμία. --- καὶ 7 ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου]. ἀλαζονεία is usually translated by 


1 Sander also explains it of avarice, but fostered by the sight.’’ Diisterdieck under- 


would not exclude the cuwriositas in spectacu- 
lis, etc.; regarding this, however, as merely 
collateral. 

2 Thus Calvin: ‘Tam libidinosos conspec- 
tus comprehendit, quam vanitatem, quae in 
pompis et inani splendore vagatur.”’ 

3 Rickli interprets: ‘‘ the low, sensual style 
of thought, in so far as this is excited and 


stands by it specially covetousness and avarice ; 
but at the same time observes that every sort 
of desire may be excited by the eye. 

4 Bengel extends the idea beyond the limit 
which lies in the expression itself, when he 
explains: ‘Ea, quibus tenentur sensus in- 
vestigativi: oculus, sive visus, auditus et 
olfactus.” 


CHAP. II. 16. 523 
superbia, ambitio (Socinus: ambitio in honoribus quaerendis ac sectandis), and 
by similar words, and thereby is understood ambition, together with the 
pride and haughty contempt for others which are frequently associated with 
10:1 thus Cyril interprets (Homil. Pasch., xxvii.): ἀλαζονείαν τ, B. φησὶ τῶν 
ἀξιωμάτων ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τὸ ἠρμένον ὕψος κατὰ ye τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν. Thereby, however, 
its peculiar meaning is not assigned to the word. In the N. T. ἀλαζονεία 
only appears in Jas. iv. 16 (in the plural); the adjective ἀλάζων in Rom. 
i. 30 and 2 Tim. iii. 2, in close connection with ὑπερῆφανος, from which, how- 
ever, it does not follow that the idea of ambition, thirst for glory, etc., is 
contained in it, but only that the ἀλαζ. is related to ὑπερηφανία; in James is 
meant thereby — according to the context —the haughtiness which overlooks 
the uncertainty of earthly happiness, and ostentatiously relies on its permanence. 
In the same sense = ostentatious pride in the possession, whether real or pre- 
tended, of earthly good things, such as happiness, power, knowledge, etc., the 
word appears also in the Apocrypha of the O. T.; comp. Wisd. v. §, xvii. 7; 
2 Mace. ix. 8, xv. 6. In classical Greek ἀλαζονεία has almost always the col- 
lateral meaning of the unreality of proud ostentation,? which has obtained in 
Hellenistic usage only in so far that the idea here also always refers to some- 
thing by its very nature worthless and trifling, and in this way certainly in- 
cludes a delusion or unreality. This meaning is to be retained here also, as 
is rightly done by Liicke, Sander, Besser, Braune ; 8 for examples in the Scrip- 
tures, comp. 1 Chron. xxii. 1 ff.; Eccles. ii. 1 ff.; Ezek. xxviii. 16, 17; 
Dan. iv. 27; Rev. xvii. 4, xviii. 7, ete. The genitive τοῦ βίου serves for the 
more particular definition of the idea; βίος signifies in the N. T. either 
“temporal life” (1 Tim. ii. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 3, Rec.), or more commonly “ the 
support of life, the means” (chap. iii. 17; Mark xii. 44; Luke viii. 43, xv. 
12, 30, xxi. 4); it never has the meaning “conduct of life” (Ebrard). 
Following Polyb., Hist., vi. 576: ἡ περὶ τοὺς βίους ἀλαζονεῖα καὶ πολυτέλεια, it is 
appropriate to take βίος here in the second meaning, and the genitive as 
objective genitive (so Liicke) ; as, however, σαρκός and ὀφθαλμὼν are subjective 
genitives, it is much more correct to take βίου also as subjective genitive, 
and accordingly to interpret “the ἀλαζονεία peculiar to the Bioc;” in the 
expression ἡδοναὶ τοῦ βίου, Luke viii. 14, τοῦ βίου may also be the objective 
genitive, thus: “the pleasures which refer to the βίος, the temporal good ;” 
but more probably it is the subjective genitive here also, especially if it be 
connected with the preceding ideas (see Meyer on this passage), thus, “the 
pleasures peculiar to the present life.” # 


1 Calvin: ‘*Fastus aut superbia, cui con- 
juncta est ambitio, jactantia, aliorum contemp- 
tus, coecus amor sui, praeceps confidentia.”’ 

2 Theophr., Charact. 23: προσποίησίς τις 
ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ὄντων πρὸς δόξαν; Plato, Phaedr.: 
ἕξις προσποιητικὴἢ ἀγαθοῦ ἣ ayabav τῶν μὴ 
νπαρχόντων ; antithesis of εἰρωνεια. 

8 With this view Neander, Gerlach, and 
Diisterdieck substantially agree also; yet their 
paraphrases do not keep precisely enough 
within the definite limits of the extent of the 
idea, as they include ostentation, ambition, 


etc.; a definite distinction between this idea 
and ἐπιθυμία is requisite. — Augustine not in- 
accurately describes the ἀλάζων thus: ‘‘ jactare 
se vult in honoribus, magnus sibi videtur, sive 
de divitiis, sive de aliqua potentia.” Ebrard 
wrongly denies that according to Hellenistic 
usage the element of pride is contained in the 
idea ἀλαζονεία; neither in classical nor in 
Hellenistic usage has the word the meaning 
“luxury,” which he maintains for it. 

4 The commentators for the most part 
express themselves somewhat vaguely. De 


524 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


REMARK. — It has almost become traditional to find the modes of appearance 
of the evil fully stated in this threefold form, corresponding to the triplicity 
which appears in the Greek writers, as in Pythag. Clinias: φιληδονία μὲν ἐν ταῖς 
ἀπολαύσεσι ταῖς διὰ σώματος, πλεονεξία δὲ Ev τῷ κερδαίνειν, φιλοδοξία δὲ ἐν τῷ καθυπερέχειν 
τῶν ἴσων τε καὶ ὁμοίων; for other expressions, see ΥΥ οἰβύθ η.} This threefold form, 
it has been thought, is found both in the fall, and again in the temptation of 
Christ; thus Bede, following Augustine, says: Per haec tria tantum cupiditas 
humana tentatur ; per haec tria Adam tentatus est et victus; per haec tentatus 
est Christus et vicit ; while a Lapide finds expressed in it even the contrast with 
the three Persons in the divine Trinity.2 — Bengel opposes this view, and makes 
such a distinction between the ἐπιθ. τῆς σαρκός and the ἐπιθ. τ. ὀφθ., that he refers 
the former to the sensus fruitivi, the latter to the sensus investigativi, but says 
of the ἀλαζονεία τ. β.: arrogantia vitae est, quae cupiditatem foras educit et 
longius in mundum diffundit, ut homo velit quam plurimus esse in victu, cultu, 
ete.; and then observes: non concidunt cum his tribus tria vitia cardinalia: 
voluptas, avaritia, superbia ; sed tamen in his continentur. By the last clause 
Bengel shows, however, ‘‘ that there is a trace of that scheme to be found even 
in him”’ (Disterdieck). — Liicke has more decidedly expressed himself against 
it, inasmuch as he finds in that threefold form only ‘‘the three chief points 
of worldly lust’’ (according to the first edition, only ‘‘as examples’’) ; and, 
moreover, the points ‘“‘in which it proceeds from the sensual desire to the 
climax of the ἀλαζονεία." But Liicke’s own interpretation of the particular 
ideas is opposed to such a progress, as he makes the first two ideas to coincide 
in regard to their substance, and thus no progress takes place from the one 
ἐπιθυμία to the other, nor is it, besides, in any way hinted at by the apostle. — 
Liicke rightly contends that particular leading vices are the subject here ; not 
individual vices, but the leading forms (Liicke) ;? or, as Briickner says, the 
leading tendencies of worldly sense are stated by the apostle in that threefold 
form. But in what relation do these stand to one another? According to 
Diisterdieck, the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός forms the superior idea, to which the two 
other ideas, as mutually co-ordinate, are in subordination: ‘‘ The first-mentioned 
lust of the flesh, the most comprehensive and thorough description of the love 
of the world (ver. 15), embraces both the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.”’ 
This is incorrect. For, on the one hand, the ἀγάπῃ to the κόσμος is not to be 
identified with the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, as the latter rather describes the inner 
nature of the κόσμος: the apostle warns against that love, because in the κόσμος 


Wette explains: ‘‘the enjoyment, combined 
with pride of (earthly) life (not: of the good 
things of life) ;”? Braune says that the genitive 
is to be taken as subjective genitive, and then 
interprets: “186 genitive τ. βίον signifies the 
side on which ostentatious pride usually 
appears;’’ Ewald translates: “swindling in 
money,” which is not only indefinite, but even 
unjustifiable. 

1 Ebrard justly denies that a division of sin 
as such is to be sought for here; but his own 
view, that in that threefold form there is given 
a distribution of worldly conduct in its entire 
extent, and in this way, that first the relation 
of man to his own bodily and sensual nature 
is expressed, then the egotistical opposition 


to his fellow-men, and finally, his relation to 
them and complication with them, is, as resting 
on a false interpretation of the particular ideas, 
just as little to be justified. 

2 The counterpart of these three forms of 
the sinful life is, according to a Lapide, the 
three primariae virtutes ; continentia, chari- 
tas, humilitas, which coincide very exactly 
with the three monastic vows of chastity, 
poverty, and obedience. 

3 When Liicke calls those three not merely 
the leading forms, but also the principles and 
sources of the worldly sense, this is not 
correct; for the worldly sense does not spring 
from the ἐπιθυμία, «.7.A.,; but the latter is the 
living motion of the former. 


CHAP. II. 17. §25 


the ἐπιθυμία which is not of God dominates; the thought that is to be supplied 
is this, that love to the κόσμος necessarily implies an entrance into its nature; 
and, on the other hand, the apostle’s form of expression is utterly opposed to 
such a subordination; the two first-mentioned forms of worldly sense are by the 
same appellation ἐπιθυμία closely connected with each other, and distinguished 
from the third, which is not called ἐπιθυμία, but ἀλαζονεία: 1 it is unsuitable, 
however, to regard the latter as ἐπιθυμία; ἐπιθυμία is the desire directed to the 
attainment of any good —the lust for something (not exactly the lust or delight 
in any thing), but the ἀλαζονεία is a definite behavior in regard to the good 
which one possesses. The worldly man stands in a double relationship to the 
perishable good things; on the one hand, he aspires after them, whether he 
wants to possess and enjoy them or to delight himself with looking at them; on 
the other hand, he fancies himself great in them when he has them as his own. 
— That the whole sphere of sinful life is not here surveyed, Luther has noticed 
when he says: ‘‘ The following three things are not of the Father, viz. : 
(1) hatred of the brethren; (2) the three idols of the world; (3) false and 
seductive teaching.’? — Sander also brings out the same trichotomy of sinful 
corruption, appealing for it to chap. ii. 2-12, where the subject is the first, to 
vy. 15-17, where it is the second, and to ver. 19 ff., where it is the third. The 
apostle certainly mentions these different modes of the appearance of sin; but 
that the organism of the Epistle rests on this, is an assertion that goes too far. 


The following words, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, x.7.2., express the anti-divine 
character of the worldly nature of the ἐπιθυμία, «.7.A.—matqp, as in ver. 15; 
κόσμος here quite in the same sense as before. —eiva ἐκ is, according to 
Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, not the description of the origin, 
but only of the connection and similarity; by this view, however, the depth 
of John’s conception is ignored; the expression rather embraces both, but 
the second only as the result of the first (so also Ebrard); comp. John 
viii. 44. — By the addition of ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστί the antagonism between 
God and the world, as the source of the ungodly disposition, is brought out 
with peculiar distinctness. 

Ver. 17 adds a new element to the preceding, whereby the exhortation 
of ver. 15 is strengthened and confirmed. —xai ὁ κόσμος παράγεται is frequently 
taken by commentators, with an appeal to 1 Cor. vii. 31, as an expression 
of the transitoriness of the world; either the present being changed into the 
future (Bede: mundus transibit, quum in die judicii per ignem in meliorem 
mutabitur figuram, ut sit coelum novum et terra nova), or the peculiar nature of 
the world being regarded as described in it (Oecumenius: τὰ κοσμικὰ ἐπιθυμή- 
ματα οὐκ ἔχει τὸ μένον τε καὶ ἑστώς, ἀλλὰ παράγεται) ; Diisterdieck combines both ; 
the apostle, according to him, expresses ἃ truth “which holds good with ever 
present meaning, and which will thereby show itself some time in fact” (so 
also Ebrard and Braune). But ver. 8 and the following ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν 
make it more than probable that the apostle here also uses παράγεται in the 
consciousness of the approaching second advent of Christ and the judgment 


1 Frommann (p. 270 ff.) justly remarks that § desire, and the ἀλαζονεία the action, which in 
the two leading forms are the ἐπιθυμία and the attainment of the object desired has already 
the ἀλαζονεία; that the ἐπιθυμία signifies the found its satisfaction. 


526 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


on the κόσμος which is connected with it, thus, “the world is in the state of dis- 
appearing ;” in 1 Cor. vii. 31, παράγει τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου is said with 
the same feeling. — καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ]. With the world passes away also 
the ἐπιθυμία which dwells in it; whereby the apostle briefly refers to the 
threefold form previously named: αὐτοῦ is not genitive of the object (Liicke, 
Neander, Sander, Besser), but of the subject (Diisterdieck, Braune); though 
there is mention previously of an ἀγαπᾷν τὸν κόσμον, yet there is none of an 
ἐπιθυμία directed towards the κύσμος ; the contrary view rests on an erroneous 
interpretation of κόσμος. --- ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, antithesis to ὁ κόσμος, 
which in its ἐπιθυμία does not do the will of God. It is true, “ ὁ πατῆρ᾽ is 
previously put as antithesis to the κόσμος, but it does not follow from this 
that the antithesis here is not to be taken as fully corresponding, and “ ém- 
θυμῶν to be taken out of ἐπιθυμία (Liicke); the appearance of this arises 
only from the fact that κόσμος is taken as something concrete. The expres- 
sion used by the apostle is synonymous with ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν Θεόν ; for the doing 
of the divine will is the effect of love to Him. — μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, antithesis 
of παράγεται; the expression signifies, as frequently, eternal, infinite endur- 
ance, comp. John vi. 51, 58, viii. 35, ete. That John regarded this abiding 
forever as the eternally happy life in the fellowship of God, is certain, but is 
not contained in the expression.1_ To the κόσμος is assigned θάνατος, to the 
children of God ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 

Vv. 18-27. Warning against the antichrists, whose presence chats that 
the last hour has come. Description of them, and exhortation to believers 
to continue in that which they have heard from the beginning, combined 
with the testimony that they have known the truth. — This section stands 
in closest connection with the preceding one; for, in the first place, the pre- 
ceding exhortation is occasioned by the thought that it is ἐσχάτη dpa, as is 
evidenced by the appearance of the ἀντίχριστοι ; and, in the second place, the 
ἀντίχριστοι, of whom the apostle treats here, are, as it is put in chap. iv. 5, 
ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. 

Ver. 18. The appearance of the ἀντίχριστοι shows that the last hour has 
come. — radia; not an address to the children (see on vy. 12-14), but to all 
readers.2 — ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστί]. ἐσχάτη ὥρα may be the whole Christian era from 
the incarnation of Christ to His second advent. In the O. T. prophecy the 
appearance of the Messiah was promised Ὁ "183 (Isa. ii. 2; Hos. iii. 
5; Mic. iv. 1, LXX.: ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις; comp. also Acts ii. 16). 
Hence arose among the Jews the distinction of the two eras: 117 ὉΠ» (αἰὼν 
οὗτος) and 837 Diy (αἰὼν μέλλων), the former the time up to the appearance 
of the Messiah, the latter embracing the Messianic time itself. —In the 
N. T. are found, partly the former idea that Christ has appeared in the last 


1 Ebrard arbitrarily explains that by αἱών 
is to be understood ‘‘the son which will 
begin with the visible establishment in glory 
of Christ’s kingdom on earth,’’ and that ὃ 
ποιῶν ... εἰς τ. αἰῶνα therefore means: ‘‘he 
who does the will of God shall remain till the 
establishment of the kingdom of Christ — he 


will be permitted to see the victory of Christ’s 
kingdom.”’ 

2 For the contrary, Ebrard appeals to the 
peculiarly childlike character of this section; 
but plainly this bears no other character than 
the whole Epistle, of which Ebrard himself says 
that it could only be understood by adults. 


CHAP. II. 18. 527 


time (Heb. i. 1; 1 Pet. i. 20), partly also the distinction of these two periods, 
but in this way, that the αἰὼν οὗτος does not close with the first appearance of 
Christ, but only with his parousia, which coincides with the συντέλεια τοῦ 
αἰῶνος ; comp. Mark x. 30; Luke xx. 34, 35; Eph. i, 21.— Inasmuch as the 
period which begins with the birth of Christ is now the last preceding 
the συντέλεια, it may be described by the expression ἐσχάτη ὥρα, as Calvin says: 
ultimum tempus, in quo sic complentur omnia, ut nihil supersit praeter ultimam 
Christi revelationem. This view is the customary one with: the older com- 
mentators ; Semler agrees with it, but the context is opposed to it; on the 
one hand, it results from vy. 8 and 17 that the apostle is writing with a 
presentiment of the parousia of Christ; and, on the other hand, the conclu- 
sion of this verse: ὅθεν, «.7.2., Shows that the apostle cannot here mean the 
whole period extending from the first appearance of Christ to His second 
coming, but only a distinct time in it, namely, the time immediately pre- 
ceding its termination; in favor of this also is the usus loquendi of the N. T.; 
comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. vy. 3; 1 Pet. i. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 3; along with which 
it is to be observed, that, especially in the Gospel of John, the day of judg- 
ment is called ἡ ἡμέρα ἐσγάτη. Liicke, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ger- 
lach, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ebrard, etc., have therefore rightly interpreted the 
expression as a description of this time. The hesitation to admit that 
the apostle was mistaken in his expectation of the nearness of the advent, 
has given rise to many a false interpretation. Socinus and Grotius think 
that ἐσγάτη dpa is the time immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem ; 
this view approximates to that of Diisterdieck, according to which the last 
time before the commencement of the κρίσις is meant, which had its begin- 
ning at the destruction of Jerusalem. But the scruple is not overcome by 
this, for chap. ii. 28 shows that John regarded the παρουσία of the Lord as 
near, and not as distant, just as the other apostles, and especially also Paul, 
according to 1 Thess. iv. 15, in view of which even Diisterdieck finds him- 
self compelled to admit this; Besser urges the want of the article, and 
translates “a last time,” i.e., the time before a special revelation of the 
judicial glory of Christ, in which the last hour before the universal final 
judgment is prefigured; but it is well known that the article is often want- 
ing just with ideas which are definite in themselves; to which it may be 
added that the idea of such a succession of different epochs, which are to 
be regarded as special revelations of the judicial power of Christ, is nowhere 
found expressed in the N. T.1. Oecumenius regarded it as likely that ἐσχάτη 
here is used = χειρίστη ; this explanation is found in Schoettgen (tempora 
periculosa, pessima et abjectissima), Carpzov, and others (similarly Paulus: 
it is a late, ie., dark, and ever growing worse, time); whereas the distinc- 
tion between these ideas is perfectly clear from 2 Tim. 111. 1: ἔν ἐσχάταις 


1 Braune, who speaks of Calvin’s view and _— even a historical reference to the parousia of 
that of Besser as “‘ worthy of notice,” expresses | Christ, as the beginning of the second era 
himself somewhat vaguely when he says: of the world, but no chronological reference 
“The expression ἐσχάτη ὥρα is to be taken to the date of the commencement of this 
prophetically, eschatologically, and has a value parousia.” Clearly a quite arbitrary asser- 
connected with the history of the kingdom, tion. 


528 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

ἡμέραις ἐνστῆσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί. The result of an impartial exegesis there- 
fore remains, that, as the other apostles, John also expected that the advent 
of the Lord would soon take place.? It was only when the first generation 
of believers was already dead, without that expectation having been ful- 
filled, that in the consciousness of Christians the period till the coming of 
the Lord extended to an indefinitely distant limit, without, however, extin- 
guishing the hope of His speedy advent; comp. 2 Pet. iii. 4 ff.; but that later 
still, the time which began with the appearance of false teachers was 
regarded as the ἰαβί, is proved by Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph., c. xi.— καὶ καθὼς 
ἠκούσατε, x.7.A,]. With the observation that it is the last time, the apostle 
connects the other, that in accordance with what his readers have heard, 
that the ἀντίχριστος would come, many ἀντίχριστοι have already come. Bengel 
supplies before καθώς, “et ta est,” and after καὶ, “adeo” (et ita est, sicut 
audistis, nempe antichristum venire: atque adeo jam multi, etc.) ; these supple- 
ments are, however, unnecessary, for the xa before viv is not the simple 
copula, but serves to mark the appearance of the ἀντίχριστοι as a fact corre- 
sponding to the καθὼς ἠκούσατε, x.7.A.: “as ye have heard, etc., so, accordingly, 
many ἀντίχριστοι are even now actually appearing.” 8. καθὼς ἠκούσατε, namely, by 
the apostolic declaration which had been communicated to his readers 
(comp. vv. 7, 24) either by John, or even earlier, by Paul especially, accord- 
ing to Semler by Jewish teachers, who were spreading false rumors of the 
end of the world (!). ὅτι (ὁ) ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται καὶ, «.7.A.]. The present ἔρχεται 
is put for the future; it marks what is still future as a certainly occurring 
event. Ebrard incorrectly translates épyera by “is to come;” even in the 
passages cited by him, chap. iv. 3; Matt. xi. 3; Gospel of John xvi. 13; 
Rey. i. 8 (why not i. 47), ἔρχεσθαι does not express simply the idea of the 
future ; besides, Ebrard interprets correctly: “will one day appear.” — The 
prophecy that before Christ comes (hence before His parousia) Antichrist 
will come, accordingly formed a part of the apostolic preaching, although it 


1 Peculiar, but artificial, is Bengel’s inter- 
pretation, which, moreover, rests on the false 
opinion that the children are here specially 
addressed: ‘‘wltima, non respectu omnium 
mundi temporum sed in antitheto puerulorum 
ad patres et ad juvenes. Tres omnino horae 
erant, quarum una post aliam et inchoavit, et 
conjunctim continuato cursu ad finem se incli- 
navit. Patrum itemque juvenum hora statim 
absoluta fuit. Hine puerulis Johannes dicit: 
ultima hora est. Hac ultima hora nos etiam- 
num vivimus omnes.” 

2 In opposition to the * prejudice” that the 
apostles regarded the advent as so near, Sander 
thinks that they could not possibly have im- 
agined that ‘all the great changes, transforma- 
tions, and developments,’”’ to which 2 Thess. 
iii. 3, Rom. xi. 25, 26, Luke xxi. 24-26, allude, 
could be accomplished within a generation. 
But could not important events take place 
within a comparatively short period? As it 
was not the business of the apostles to foresee 


the course of history, it cannot be any reproach 
on them if they cherished the hope that the 
longed-for coming of the Lord would soon 
occur, especially as they formed out of this 
hope no peculiar doctrine, and did not venture 
to determine the time and the hour. The 
certainly extravagant assertion of Ebrard, 
that it would have been contrary to the order 
of God’s economy of revelation, if John, at 
the time when he wrote his Epistle, had not 
expected the second advent of Christ in the 
near future, rests entirely on Ebrard’s views 
of the Apocalypse, from the visions of which, 
according to him, it could only be clear to the 
apostle for the first time that the ἔρχομαι of 
the Gospel of John xxi. 22 is to be understood 
of the coming of the Lord in a vision. 

ὃ Diisterdieck : ‘‘ With the expectation ὅτι ὃ 
ἀντιχρ. €px., founded on the apostolic teaching, 
corresponds the fact already begun: ἀντιχρ. 
πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν." 


CHAP. IT. 18. 529 


is not contained in the last discourses of Christ that have been handed down 
to us, for the ψευδοπροφῆται and the ψευδόχριστοι, Whose appearance Christ 
foretells, are not to be identified with the ἀντίχριστος. ---- According to the 
view which has prevailed from antiquity, the ἀντίχρεστος and the πολλοὶ ἀντί- 
χριστοι are to be distinguished in this way, that the latter are only the 
πρόδρυμοι Of the former, in which for the first time the antichristian spirit 
which already animates them will be revealed in his full perfection and 
energy. Bengel, deviating from this, takes the expression ἀντίχριστος as a 
collective idea: ubi Joh. antichristum, vel spiritum antichristi, vel deceptorem et 
antichristum dicit, sub singulari numero, omnes mendaces et veritatis inimicos 
innuit. Antichristus pro antichristianismo, sive doctrina, et multitudine hominum 
Christo contraria dicitur; with this interpretation, Lange, Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius, Besser, and Myrberg agree. But neither here nor in iv. 1 ff. does John 
say that antichrist has already come; here he merely indicates the fact that 
πολλοὶ ἀντίχριστοι γεγόνασιν as corresponding to the announcement of the com- 
ing of antichrist, and in the other passage it is merely stated that many wevdo- 
προφῆται are gone out into the world, and that the πνεῦμα of antichrist is 
already in the world. In the passage 2 John 7, “ it is true that the explana- 
tory clause οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος refers so directly to the preced- 
ing πολλοὶ Advair,” that it appears that “the identity is thereby indicated” 
(1st ed.); but this direct connection may, no doubt, be explained in this 
way, that he who speaks through the many is, according to John, no other 
than the one antichrist; and even though John “neither describes the ἀντί- 
xptoror as the πρόδρομοι, nor the ἀντίχριστος as the one in whom the principle 
that animates them is concentrated in highest potency,” it is to be remem- 
bered that John is speaking of the antichrist here, not in doctrinal aspect, 
but only in order to’ show by the heretics, whom he calls ἀντίχριστοι, that the 
πνεῦμα of antichrist is already ἐν τῷ xéou.1 The name ἀντίχριστος is not found 
in the Scriptures outside of the First and Second Epistles of John; only in 
the later ecclesiastical literature does it appear frequently. — That the pre- 
fixed dvr: does not express the substitutionary reference (as in ἀντιβασιλεύς), 
but the reference of antagonism, is with justice now commonly recognized ; 
but the prevailing translation, “enemy of Christ,” is grammatically inaccu- 
rate, as in substantive compounds formed with ἀντὶ (in the antagonistic sense), 
the substantive is an object which by ἀντι is described as standing in opposi- 
tion to an object of the same kind. Thus, an ἀντιφιλόσοφος is not an 
“opponent of philosophy” (Ebrard), or of philosophers, but a philosopher 
who is opposed to other philosophers, a hostile philosopher; comp. ἀντι- 
μαχητῆς, ἀντιπαλαιστῆς, ἀντίπολις, ἀντίῤῥησις, ἀντίῤῥοια, «.t.A.2 Accordingly, ὁ ἀντί- 


1 Weiss justly maintains, against From- 
mann and Reuss, according to whom John 
has spiritualized or confused the dogma of 
antichrist, that he in no way denies the reality 
of the antichrist, although Weiss thinks that 
John regards the prophecy of the antichrist as 
fulfilled in this, that the spirit of antichrist has 
come into the world, and τῇ the false teachers 1s 
denying the fundamentals of Christian truth, 


2 From this it is clear that the rule laid 
down by Liicke, that ‘the word compounded 
with ἀντι is the object of the opposition,’ can 
by no means hold good for all compounds with 
ἀντι, inasmuch as the examples adduced by 
Liicke—avripptov ἄκρον, ἀντιβόρειος, ἀντήλιος, 
ἀντιθυρος --τϑῦθ not substantives; and, in the 
second place, ἀντι does not express in them 
the idea of hostile antagonism. 


δ80 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


xptoroc does not mean generally, the enemy of Christ, but the “ opposition 
Christ,” i.e., that enemy of Christ who, under the false pretence of being the 
real Christ, seeks to destroy the work of Christ.1_ Almost all commentators 
have correctly supposed that John understands by this enemy the same as 
Paul speaks of in 2 Thess. ii. 3; the features which appear in the descrip- 
tion of the Apostle Paul and in the statements of John correspond too 
closely to permit of this being doubted; according to both, his appearance 
in the Church is preceded by a falling away (John says in ver. 19, of the 
antichrists: ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον; Paul in ver. 3 speaks of an ἀποστασία connected 
with his ἀποκάλυψις); both ascribe to him a God-opposing, wicked nature 
(Paul calls him ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 6 ἄνομος ; John puts the πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντι- 
χρίστου in antithesis to the πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, and says of the antichrists who 
are animated by the former, that they are ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου) ; both characterize 
him as a liar, who seeks to establish the lie against the truth; according to 
both, he appears in the last time before the parousia of Christ. Even the 
names correspond with each other; for, even though the name ἀντίχριστος 
contains an important feature which is not expressed in the name ὁ ἀντικεί- 
μενος, yet this very feature comes out so distinctly in the Pauline description, 
that it is clear how suitable John’s appellation of that enemy is; when, 
namely, Paul describes him as the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, and afterwards says 
of him that he ἀποδείκνυσι ἑαυτόν, ὅτι ἐστὶ Θεός, this points to the fact that he 
will represent himself as the incarnate God, and this is just what is indicated 
in the name ἀντίχριστος. 


REMARK.— On the various views of the antichrist, see Liinemann on 
2 Thess. ii. 1-12, p. 204 ff., and Diisterdieck on this passage. — The Greek 
Fathers regard the antichrist usually as a man who, as an instrument of the 
Devil, imitates the true Christ, comp. Hippolyt., De Consummat Mundi, c. vi. 
14, c. xlviii.; Cyril, Catech. xv.; yet there is also found the incorrect view that he 
is the incarnate Devil himself (comp. Theodoret, Epit. Div. Decret., c. xxiii., and 
Comment. in Dan., ii.; Hippolyt. c. xxii.). — Like the parousia of Christ, so the 
appearance of antichrist also belongs still to the future: of antichrists, as they 
had appeared in the time of John, there has never since been any lack; but the 
antichrist has not yet come, and it was equally arbitrary for Grotius to regard 
Barkochba, or others Mohammed, or Luther the Pope, or Catholics Luther, and 
so on, as antichrist.— Not merely rationalistie writers, but also Liicke, De 
Wette, Neander, and others, distinguish form and idea in John’s representation 
of the future appearance of the antichrist. As the fundamental idea, they 
regard the thought, that, equally with the development of Christianity, the evil 
will gradually increase more and more in its contest against Christ, until at last, 
when it has attained its highest summit, it will be completely conquered by the 
power of Christ. As the form, they regard the representation that this highest 
energy of the evil will finally appear in one single person. For such a 


1 While Briickner agrees with the explana- tence”? does not lie in the word itself, but 
tion given here, it is opposed by Braune; but certainly in the fact, since there is only one 
he does not pay attention to the grammatical Christ; it is different in the case of the word 
vindication. Besides, it is to be observed that ἀντιφιλόσοφος. 
the more particular definition of ‘* false pre- 


CHAP. II. 19. ὍΘΙ 


distinction it is difficult, however, to show any justification, as Scripture itself 
gives no suggestion of it; it is therefore rightly rejected by Diisterdieck, Braune, 
Briickner. 


In the words καὶ viv ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν, the apostle mentions the 
fact in which the expectation, ὅτι ὁ ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται, is beginning to be real- 
ized. The ἀντίχριστοι are the heretics who accept the lie described in ver. 22; 
but they bear that name because the πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου animates them, 
and thus the antichrist himself is already revealing himself in them. γεγό- 
vaow is not = coeperunt esse (Erasmus), but “they have become,” i.e., they 
are already in existence. By means of the subordinate clause, ὅθεν γινώσκο- 
μεν, .7.2., the connection between the two first parts of the verse is to be 
recognized. 

Ver. 19. Relation of the ἀντίχριστοι to the Christian Church. —é ἡμῶν 
ἐξῆλθαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν]. On the form of the second aorist with a, see 
Winer, p. 71 (E. T., 73).— By ἡμῶν we are not to understand the Jews 
(Grotius, Eichhorn, Rickli), nor the apostles (S. Schmid, Spener, Besser, 
and others), but Christians in general, as the Church of Christ. ἐξῆλθαν is 
taken by several commentators = prodierunt (Vulgate, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Erdmann, and others), finding the idea of origin expressed in it: this is 
incorrect; the following μεμενήκεισαν shows that it is rather to be taken in 
the sense of secessio (so Augustine, Bede, Erasmus; and among the moderns, 
Liicke, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, and others). By the emphatic posi- 
tion of ἐξ ἡμῶν it is brought out that the antichrists were previously μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν; 
and belonged therefore to the Christian Church. How far this separation 
had been formally accomplished, John does not say; but it is contained in 
ἐξῆλθαν that they had taken up an antagonistic position, not merely to the 
apostolic doctrine (Beza: ad mutationem non loci sed doctrinae pertinet), but 
to those who by their faithful observance of the unadulterated gospel proved 
themselves to be the children of God (as also Braune). — ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἧσαν ἐξ 
ἡμῶν]. ἀλλ᾽ expresses the contrast to the preceding thought: although they 
went out from us (and therefore were connected with us), yet they were not 
of us. εἶναι ἐκ expresses connection in the most complete reality, thus: they 
were not of us, viz., in such a way that they would have really belonged to 
us, as common members of one body, in which one soul lives; in contrast 
to which the εἶναι μετά contained in the following μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ’ ἡμῶν 
expresses the outward fellowship as distinguished from the former idea. 
Even here ἐκ does not depart from its original meaning (see on ver. 16), for 
he only truly belongs to the Church of the Lord who in regard to his inner 
life has proceeded from it, i.e., from the Spirit ruling in it.2, The imperfect 


1 Ebrard finds himself compelled by his 
interpretation of παιδία not to include in ἡμεῖς 
those addressed, but to say ‘‘the apostle puts 
himself and the Church in contrast to the 
little ones whom he addresses.” 

2 Diisterdieck: ‘‘ That those antichrists left 
the fellowship of the believers, follows from 
μεμενήκ. av μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν; but the original, inner, 


ethical relationship of those men who went 
out from the bosom of Christian fellowship, 
and fell away from it, is indicated by the 
different meaning in which the same phrase ἐξ 
ἡμῶν appears, on the one hand, with ἐξῆλθαν, 
with which μεμενήκ., «.7.A., is to be combined ; 
and, on the other hand, in the expressions ov« 
ἧσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν and εἰ yap ἧσαν ἐξ ny. 


532 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


ἧσαν embraces the whole previous period during which the antichristians 
were connected with the believers, and does not merely refer to the time 
immediately preceding their separation (Episcopius, Socinus). — That they 
were not ἐξ ἡμῶν, John proves by the words, εἰ γὰρ ἧσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν 
μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν. The ἀντίχριστοι belonged therefore to the Christians for a while; 
they were yer’ αὐτῶν, although not ἐξ αὐτῶν, for.in this case they would also 
have remained yer’ αὐτῶν. Here, too, John proceeds on the idea that the 
μένειν is the evidence of the εἶναι. On the pluperfect without the augment, 
see Winer, p. 70 (E. T., 72). — ἀλλ᾽ iva φανερωθῶσιν, x.7.2.]. ἀλλά refers 
back to ἐξῆλθαν, or to the thought, οὐ μεμενῆκασι μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, “but they have 
not remained with us.” Less sirnply Diisterdieck interprets: “they have not 
remained with us, but (ἀλλά) they have been separated from us, in order 
that.” Such a double supplement is not necessary, for ἀλλά is not neces- 
sarily the antithesis of a negation. — By iva, «.7.4., it is not the result 
(Paulus), but the purpose, that is stated,—the purpose, namely, of their 
separation or not remaining, which was willed by God; the purpose is that 
it might be manifest that they are not ἐξ ἡμῶν. The connection of davepw- 
θῶσιν with the following ὅτε οὐκ εἰσὶ πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν is not quite regular; So- 
cinus construes οὐ and πάντες together: non omnes = nulli, i.e., nemo ex illis 
est ex nostro numero: this is incorrect; ob πάντες is not = nulli, but = nonnulli. 
De Wette rightly supposes the conjunction of two thoughts, viz., (1) iva 
φανερωθῇ, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶ πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν ; and (2) ἕνα φανερωθῶσιν, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξ ἡμῶν, 
only De Wette should have put the second thought first, for John’s imme- 
diate intention was, as the plural gavepwidow shows, to speak only of the 
ἀντίχριστοι, but then he extends his idea so as to introduce the new subject 
πάντες; the sense is: it was to be made manifest in the ἀντίχριστοι that they 
were not—and therefore that all who were μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν were not — ἐξ ἡμῶν (80 
also Braune).1— For the work of the Christian Church it is necessary that 
it shall be manifest who really belongs to it, and who does not; this κρίσις is 
the purpose for the sake of which God has so arranged it that those ἀντί- 
χριστοι Should go out: comp. with the idea in 1 Cor. xi. 19. 


REMARK. —In the words, εἰ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, this 
thought is contained: He who really belongs to the Church never leaves it; he 
who leaves it shows thereby that he did not really belong to it. This confidence 
of the apostle in the preserving love of the Lord, and in the faithfulness of 
those whom He has saved, seems to be opposed to the idea brought out in 
Heb. vi. 4 ff., that even those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of 
the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, etc., may fall 
away. But, as constantly in his Epistle, so here also John speaks absolutely, 
without taking into view the state of gradual development, from which, however, 
it does not follow that he does not recognize it. The one circumstance that he 
exhorts believers as such to abide in Christ, shows that he would not deny the 


1 Myrberg interprets: “Sed (egressi sunt) de nobis,’ cannot serve to establish the idea 
ut manifesti redderentur; nam non omnes φανερωθῶσιν. According to Hilgenfeld, πάντες 
sunt de nobis;” but incorrectly, for (1) is to be referred only to the antichrists: ‘‘ that 
φανερωθῶσιν requires a more particular defi- they all were not of us;”’ but this is refuted 
nition; and (2) the idea: ‘‘non omnes sunt by the position of πάντες. 


CHAP. II. 20, 21. 533 


possibility of their falling away; only it is— justly —certain to him that he 
who does not abide had not yet with his whole heart entered into the fellowship 
of the Lord, but even though touched by His love, and exhibiting the trace of 
love towards Him, had nevertheless not broken completely with the world. 
Ebrard thinks that the apostle means only, that temptation by this particular 
lie (namely, by Gnosticism) is only possible with those who in their inner being 
were previously strangers to Christianity; but even though John here speaks of 
particular antichrists, yet the general thought is at the basis of the words εἰ 
ἦσαν uttered in reference to them; otherwise the apostle would have definitely 
pointed out the difference of these apostates from others to whom the word has 
no reference. — Augustine, Calvin, Beza, etc., find in the words a confirmation 
of their doctrine of predestination, but only by inserting in them ideas which 
are foreign to them, since the subject here is neither a donwin perseverantiae 
nor a distinction of the vocati and electi. 


Vv. 20, 21. Testimony that the believers, to whom the apostle writes, 
know the truth. — καὶ ὑμεῖς χρίσμα ἔχετε]. The apostle writes this neither as 
a captatio benevolentiae (Lange), nor as a justification of the brevity of his 
writing on the foregoing subject (a Lapide), nor for the purpose of quieting 
his readers, “who at the appearance of so many antichrists might possibly 
be alarmed for the safety of their own faith” (Liicke), but in order to make 
the warning contained in his words in reference to the antichristian lie the 
more forcible; see on ver. 12.— Most commentators take καί here as particula 
adversativa (so even De Wette; more cautiously, Liicke: “the logical rela- 
tionship of this verse to ver. 19 is that of an antithesis, therefore καί becomes 
logically adversative”); the incorrectness of this view is recognized indeed 
by Diisterdieck and Ebrard, yet they maintain the antithetical reference of 
this verse to the preceding one; and of course in itself there is nothing 
against the supposition of a connection of adversative ideas by the simple 
copula; but that an adversative relationship occurs here is very much to be 
doubted, for the apostle did not now need to say to his readers that they, 
as such as have the χρίσμα, were in opposition to the antichrists, and, besides, 
in the sequel that idea is not further followed up.! It is more suitable to 
the context, to connect the first part of this verse closely with the second, 
and in this two-claused sentence to find the presupposition stated for what 
is said in the following verse (so also Briickner). — χρῖσμα appears in the 
N. T. only here and in ver. 27; according to Greek usus loquendi, it is 
the anointing oil ; as in the O. T., for example, Exod. xxix. 7, xxx. 31. “In 
the O. T. the holy anointing oil is constantly the type of the Holy Spirit, 
both where anointing appears as a figurative action (besides the passages 
quoted, in 1 Sam. x. 1 ff., xvi. 13, 14) as well as where it appears in figura- 


1 By this, however, it is not meant that the 
apostle, when he turns to his readers with 
ὑμεῖς, does not contrast them at all with the 
antichrists, but only that he does not do it in 
this sense, that he wishes thereby to empha- 
size a contrast between them. Had the apostle 
intended this, he would certainly not have 
used καί, for in such antitheses καί is only 


suitable when the predicates exactly corre- 
spond with one another (e.g., they have τὸ 
πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, and ye have τὸ πνεῦμα 
Θεοῦ); but even then, usually δέ is used 
(comp. Matt. v. 21, 22, and many other 
passages), or no particle at all (comp. John 
iii. 31, ete.). 


53+ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

tive language (Ps. xlv. 8; Isa. Ixi. 1). But that which in the O. T. is 
presented in type and shadow, in the N. T. has appeared in truth and sub- 
stance” (Besser); χρίσμα is therefore a symbolical expression for the Holy 
Spirit, as ypiew, moreover, is frequently used of the gift of the Holy Spirit; 
comp. Acts iv. 27, x. 38; 2 Cor. i. 21. With this most of the commen- 
tators agree, only that χρῖσμα is usually incorrectly explained as the act 
“‘unctio, anointing,” and this is then taken as a description of the Holy 
. Spirit; so by Augustine, and even by De Wette, Ewald, Sander, and Erd- 
mann. It is erroneous to understand χρίσμα of the “true tradition about 
Christ, vividly transmitted, proceeding from the apostles” (Késtlin, p. 243), 
or of the working of the Holy Spirit (Didymus: charitas, quae diffunditur in 
cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum; Socinus: divinum beneficium cognoscendi 
ipsas res divinas, quatenus homini est opus; Emanuel Sa: christianismus), or of 
the act in which the Spirit is given to Christians, thus of baptism (Ewald) 
or of confirmation. Oecumenius wrongly finds here (ἐλάβετε διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσμα- 
τος TO χρίσμα τὸ ἱερόν, καὶ διὰ τούτου τὸ εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὁδηγοῦν ὑμᾶς θεῖον πνεῦμα) 
an allusion to the old custom of anointing the candidate for baptism; this 
custom does not belong to the apostolic age, but was probably first intro- 
duced by this passage, as Bengel has observed.!_ It is, on the whole, less 
likely that John was here thinking of the communication of the Spirit by 
means of baptism, as is usually supposed, than that he was thinking of that 
by means of the preaching of the gospel (Diisterdieck), as in the whole 
context there is nothing to suggest the former.2, That John uses just the 
word χρῖσμα is not without meaning; as in the O. T. not only kings, but also 
priests and (sometimes) prophets were anointed, he reminds believers thereby 
“of their high honor, calling, office, and glory” (Sander). If it be the case 
that there is also an allusion in it to the name of the Antichrist (Bengel, 
Diisterdieck), then the apostle wanted to bring out that believers in posses- 
sion of the χρῖσμα are enabled to fully know the antichristian ψεῦδος in its con- 
tradiction to the ἀλήθεια; see ver. 21.— ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου]. For ἔχετε, in 


1 As Bengel thinks that this whole section 
is addressed to the children, he says: ‘‘ Kam 
unctionem spiritualem habent τὰ παιδια 
pueruli; namque cum baptismo, quem susce- 
perunt, conjunctum erat douum Spiritus s., 
cujus, significandi causa ex hoc ipso loco 
deinceps usu receptum esse videtur, ut oleo 
corpora baptizatorum ungerentur.’’ — How in 
modern times this passage is misused as a 
proof of the post-apostolic origin of the 
Epistle, see the Introduction, sec. 3. 

2 As quite arbitrary interpretations, we 
may further mention here that of Semler and 
that of J. J. Hess (Flati’s and Susskind’s 
Magaz., vol. xiv.); the former, on the false 
assumption that the Epistle is addressed 
especially to the presbyters also, explains 
χρῖσμα by: legitima auctoritas docendi, and 
adds: χρῖσμα est idem ac χάρισμα illud, cujus 
auctor spiritus 8., qui per apostolos imperti- 


tur doctoribus ; and the latter understands by 
it the instruction which the churches of Asia 
Minor received about Antichrist through the 
Apocalypse. 

3 Neander: ‘* That which in the Old Cove- 
nant was connected only with individuals to 
whom in some way the guidance of God’s 
people was intrusted, with individuals who 
thereby were singled out from the mass of the 
rest of the people, this under the New Cove- 
nant is connected with the people of God in 
general. ... There are therefore no longer 
among the people of God any such distinctions 
as there were in the Old Covenant between 
kings, prophets, priests, and people... . 
They are one kingly priestly race, whose 
nobility and high destination all share; all 
are prophets by virtue of that common en- 
lightenment by the Holy Spirit.” 


CHAP. II. 21. 5385 


ver. 27, ἐλάβετε is put; the possession rests upon a reception, and this, 
indeed, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου ; ὁ ἅγιος is—following the correct interpretation of χρῖσμα 
—not the Holy Spirit (Didymus, Lorinus, Semler), but either God (Rickli, 
Besser, Neander: “ἀπό indicates the source ;” which, however, is not always: 
the case), comp. John xiv. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 19: τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὐ ἔχετ 

ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, ---- or more probably, as most commentators think, Christ; comp. 
John xv. 26: ὁ παράκλητος, ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμὶν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός; and John vi. 69, 
where Christ (according to the overwhelming authorities) is called ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ 
Θεοῦ; in favor of which is the fact that John, in ver. 29, calls Christ δίκαιος, 
and in chap. iii. 3, ἄγνος (comp. also Acts 111. 14; Rev. iii. 7). — That the 
bestower of the χρίσμα is called by John ὁ ἅγιος (whether it be God or Christ) 
arises from this, that the anointing with the Spirit is an act of making holy, 
i.e., of separation from the world; but he only can make holy who himself is 
holy. —xai οἴδατε tavta]. Bengel, according to the sense, explains καί cor- 
rectly by et inde; the possession of the χρίσμα is the reason of the εἰδέναι 
πάντα. --- πάντα is not masculine (Syrus: omnes; Bede: discernitis inter probos 
et improbos), but neuter. Calvin rightly says: omnia, non universaliter capi, 
sed ad praesentis loci circumstantiam restringi debet: still it must not be 
restricted merely to those things (quae sunt) necessaria agnoscendis anti- 
christis et cavendis illorum insidiis (Bengel), but it embraces along with these 
τὴν ἀλήθειαν in general (ver. 21); comp. John xiv. 26, xvi. 18: πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλῆ- 
θείαν. In the possession of the whole truth Christians are also enabled to 
distinguish lies and truth. 

Ver. 21. οὐκ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν does not refer to the whole epistle (Beza), but to 
that which is said of the antichrists; comp. ver. 26.2 — ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἀλῆ- 
θειαν, k,7.2.]. ὅτι = because (comp. vv. 12-14); the apostle does not want to 
teach the anointed Christians for the first time the truth which was revealed 
in Christ, but he is writing to them because they know it; a Lapide: non ut 
haec vos doceam, sed ut doctos confirmem. — καὶ ὅτι πὰν ψεῦδος, x.7.A,]. This ὅτι 
is not co-ordinate with the preceding one, but is dependent on οἴδατε. Luther, 
correctly according to the sense: “but ye know it, and know that,” etc. — 
πᾶν ψεῦδος, quite generally, though with special reference to the antichristian 
doctrine; ψεῦδος : “not merely error, but lie” (De Wette)—the absolute 
antithesis of ἀλήθεια ; Lange quite arbitrarily thinks that the abstract is here 
put for the concrete: “that no false teacher can be a genuine Christian.” 
It is incorrect to take πᾶν... οὐ as a Hebraism = οὐδέν :- οὐ belongs rather to 
the predicate. —éx τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστῇ. ἐκ here also indicates the source, and 
does not express merely the connection (De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius). 
Because the lie is not of the truth, so also it has no connection with it; 
Lorinus: ex vero non nisi verum sequitur, et verum vero consonat. Whence 
the lie, which is not ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας, originates, Christ says in John viii. 44: 
The truth is from God, who is Himself the truth; the lie from the Devil, 
who is not in the truth. 


1 The genuinely Catholic interpretation of | quae pertinent ad doctrinae christianae veri- 
Estius is worthy of notice: ‘* Habetis episco- tatem. 
pos et presbyteros, quorum cura ac studio 2 Ebrard refers this ἔγραψα also arbitrarily 
vestrae ecclesiae satis instructae sunt 1n iis, to the Gospel of John. 


536 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Vv. 22,23. The existence of the antichrists and their relationship to the 
Christian Church having been previously stated, there follows now the more 
particular definition of the antichristian lie. — τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης. The inter- 
rogative form, with which John addresses his readers who know the truth, 
is explained by the vividness of the feeling with which the apostle is 
writing ; similarly in chap. v. 5. He passes from the abstract (πᾶν ψεῦδος) 
directly to the concrete (ψεύστης). The definite article ὁ ψεύστης (Luther 
incorrectly : a liar) brings out the idea in clearer distinctness: the liar κατ᾽ 
ἐξοχήν, i.e., he in whom the lie appears in concrete personality (so also 
Braune), identical with ὁ ἀντίχριστος, which is denied by Jachmann through 
mistake of John’s idea. The thought is weakened by the supposition that 
the apostle is speaking here comparatively (Grotius: quis polest major esse 
impostor?). Nor is Bengel’s interpretation satisfactory: gui est illius men- 
dacii imposturaeque reus? with which Diisterdieck agrees, when he para- 
phrases: “ What sort of a lie I mean, ye know very well. Who are the 
liars? Are they not those who deny, etc.?” The apostle certainly has 
the particular lie of the antichrists of his time in view, but this he regards 
as the one chief and fundamental lie “in which all ψεῦδος is comprised” 
(Liicke). The explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius is plainly quite errone- 
ous: “ what else is a false doctrine than, ete. ?” nor is that of Ebrard less 
so, as he finds in this catechetical (!) question intended for children this 
meaning: “on whose side is the lie?” with which he then supplies the 
corresponding question: “ and on whose side is the truth?” — εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνού- 
μένος]. εἰ up, often after a negation, may also stand after a question, as in 
this a negation is contained ; comp. Luke xvii. 18; Rom. xi. 15; 1 Cor. ii. 
11; 2 Cor. ii. 2; 1 John v. 5; it corresponds to the German “als nur” 
(English: “ but only,” “except”’), and limits the general thought to a par- 
ticular one; the sense accordingly is: No other is the liar but he who, ete. 
According to Ebrard, ei μῇ must here only have the meaning of “ than,” 
because the question here is, which of the two dogmatical tendencies (!) belongs 
to the lie; that the apostle here has in view two parties, namely, the anti- 
christs and the believing Christians, and asks which of them is in possession 
of the truth, is a pure fiction, for which there is not the slightest evidence in 
the text. ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός]. On the construction of the negative 
idea ἀρνεῖσθαι with the following οὐκ, by which the negation is more strongly 
emphasized, see Kiihner, II. p. 410.— The lie of the antichrist consists in 
the denial that Jesus is ὁ Χριστός, i.e., in the denial of the identity of Jesus 
and Christ, whereby is meant, according to ver. 19 and chap. iv. 3, not the 
Jewish unbelief, that Jesus is not the promised Messiah, but the Gnostic 
heresy of the distinction between Jesus and Christ, which forms the sharpest 
contradiction to the apostle’s doctrine that Jesus is the λόγος σὰρξ γενύμενος. 
It is erroneous to find here a reference to two different kinds of heresy; on 
the one hand, the denial of the divine, on the other, the denial of the human, 
nature of Jesus;! for John speaks only of one lie. — οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος]. 


1 $0 Tertullian (de Praescript. c. 38): non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei; illud 
“ Joh. in ep. eos maxime antichristos vocat, Marcion, hoe Ebion vindicavit.’’ Similarly 
qui Christum negarent in carne venisse et qui Besser: “Ταῦ Jesus was not the Christ, the 


CHAP. II. 23. 537 


οὗτος refers back to ὁ ἀρνούμενος : the liar who denies the identity of Jesus 
and Christ, he is the antichrist. It is natural to take ὁ ψεύστης and ὁ ἀντίχρ. 
here in a general signification, and to find therein a justification for Bengel’s 
conception of John’s idea of antichrist; but as the lie of the antichrists pro- 
ceeds from the πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, it may be ascribed to the antichrist 
himself; the individual antichrists are the mouth by which he speaks. —6 
ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν is not to be connected with οὗτος, so that the 
sense would be: this one, who denies the Father and the Son, is the anti- 
christ; but as a clause of more particular definition subordinate to ὁ ἀντί- 
χριστος. “John hereby adds a new element which states the full unhappy 
consequence of that antichristian lie” (Diisterdieck ; similarly Braune). The 
apostle wants to bring out here that the denial that Jesus is ὁ Χριστός is In 
its very essence a denial of the Father and of the Son. We who denies the 
identity of Jesus and Christ directly denies the Son, for the Son is no other 
than Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός (neither an xon named Christ that did not become 
man, nor Jesus who is not Christ, or, according to John i. 14, the Logos) ;1 
_but he who denies the Son denies also the Father, and not merely inasmuch 
as Son and Father are logically interchangeable ideas, but because the nature 
of the Father is only manifested in the Son, and all true knowledge of the 
Father is conditioned by the knowledge of the Son, so that the God of those 
who deny the Son is not the true God, but a false image of their own 
thoughts, an εἴδωλον.2 

Ver. 23. Confirmation of the last stated thought in two clauses which 
express the same idea, only in different form. — πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱόν, οὐδὲ 
ἀρνεῖσθαι Tov υἱόν is in meaning synonymous with ἀρνεῖσθαι, ὅτι 
Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐστιν 6 Χριστός. The assertion that John here confounds with the 
idea of Christ that of the Son, i.e., of the eternal Logos (De Wette and 
others), is erroneous; it is not Christ apart from Jesus that he regards as 
the Son, but Christ in his identity with Jesus (Diisterdieck, Briickner). — 
Instead of saying in the second part of the first clause καὶ ἀρνεῖται, corre- 
sponding to the first part, John says, oidé ... ἔχει, which has a wider 
import, for ἔχειν is to be taken emphatically = “to possess in living fellow- 
ship ” (Disterdieck) ; the explanation of Beza is insufficient: nec patrem esse 


x ΄ ν 
τὸν πατέρα ἔχει]. 


Christ not Jesus. Either the Word that was 
from the beginning was separated from this 
Jesus, or the flesh was denied to the eternal 
Word.” Comp. Introd. sec. 3. 

1 Weiss correctly brings out the distinction 
between the ideas Χριστός and vids, when he 
observes that ὁ Χριστός is a historical concep- 
tion to the apostle, and that it is enough for 
him that that proposition of the false teachers 
denies the Messiahship of Christ, from which 
all belief in Him must take its starting-point, 
in order to arrive at the recognition that Jesus 
is the Son of God, and thus in the Son to 
recognize the Father. 

2 That such commentators as proceed on 
rationalistic assumptions have not been able 


to interpret the thought of the apostle, is quite 
natural, But even others have got a more 
or less indistinct view of it by putting, as 
Diisterdieck rightly says, ‘‘the ideas of John 
too directly into dogmatic forms (and, indeed, 
into those defined by the Church);” or by 
ignoring the realism of the apostle, and re- 
garding what he considered in an objectively 
real way as a mere element of the subjective 
consideration; or, finally, by bringing out 
one-sided references instead of giving the 
ideas the due force of their entire compre- 
hension. 

3 Braune, rightly: ‘‘ Here is the progress 
from the denying to the having, and from the 
particular (ὁ ψεύστης) to the general (7as).” 


538 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

credit (better, a Lapide: habere in mente et fide, in ore et confessione); the 
thought of the apostle is utterly eliminated when, with Socinus, Episcopius, 
Grotius, ἔχειν τ. πατέρα is explained by “to know the will of God; ” errone- 
ously Storr also: “to him is the Father not gracious.””—In the following 
words: ὁ ὁμολογῶν, x.7.2., Which are wanting in the Iecepta (see the critical 
notes), ὁμολογεῖν forms the antithesis of ἀρνεῖσθαι ; it means a confession which 
is the expression of faith (Matt. x. 32; Rom. x. 10). In regard to the 
construction, Ebrard rightly remarks: “That τὸν υἱόν is dependent on ὁμολο- 
γῶν, and not along with καὶ τὸν πατέρα (as in 2 John 9) on ἔχει (in which case 
ἐμολογῶν would be used absolutely), clearly results from the preceding words, 
to which these form the antithesis.” 

Vy. 24, 25. Exhortation to the faithful keeping of the gospel. Ver. 
24. ὑμεῖς]. By the Iecepta, ὑμεῖς οὖν, the correct relationship of this verse 
is taken away; it is not a conclusion from what immediately precedes 
(Diisterdieck, Braune), but with the emphasized ὑμεῖς it is put in contrast 
with what is said of the false teachers; Theophylact: ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν οὕτως " 
ὑμεῖς δὲ ἅπερ ἠκούσατε an’ ἀρχὴς φυλάττετε παρ΄ Eavroic. — In regard to the construc- 
tion: ὑμεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμὲν μενέτω, Beza and Socinus, it is either an 
attraction (ὑμεῖς ὃ 7x. for ὃ ὑμεῖς ἠκούσ., so also Bengel: antitheton est in prono- 
mine, ideo adhibetur trajectio; De Wette: “ ὑμεῖς is properly no doubt the 
subject of the relative clause placed first;” Jachmann)! or an ellipsis (ὑμεῖς 
= quod ad vos attinet); Paulus and Ebrard regard ὑμεὶς as the pure vocative ; 
but it is more correct to admit an anacolouthon which has its natural origin 
in this, that the apostle’s thought in opposition to the false teachers was 
first directed to his readers, but equally also to the word which they had 
heard from the beginning; accordingly the apostle begins with ὑμεῖς, but 
does not follow it up by μένετε ἐν or a similar expression, but by ὃ ἠκούσατε, 
kK.T.A., aS a new subject; comp. Winer, p. 534 (E. T., 574); Buttmann, p. 325 
(E. T., 380). The same anacolouthon in ver. 27.2, With ὃ ἠκούσατε an’ ἀρχῆς; 
comp. ver. 7; thereby, of course, the whole gospel is meant, but here specially 
the fundamental doctrine of it, — that Jesus is the Christ. —év ὑμῖν]. Theo- 
phylact interprets ἐν by παρά; Luther: “among;” but the preposition must 
be retained in its proper meaning; for upon that it depends that what was 
heard “ abides in the soul as something that determines the life” (Neander; 
comp. John xv. 7), because only then does that take place which the apostle 
expresses in the sequel. — καὶ ὑμεῖς... μενεῖτε]. The καί before the conclud- 
ing clause brings out more clearly its corresponding relationship to the pre- 
ceding clause; here it is so much the more significant, as in both clauses the 
same verbal idea μένειν is used: If the Word remain in you, ye also will 
remain in the Son, etc.2 That our remaining in the Son is the immediate 


1 The idea of an attraction is erroneous, 
because “ὑμεῖς, if attracted to the relative 
clause, would be too strongly emphasized in 
this position” (Winer). 

2 Myrberg’s reply, that ὑμεῖς is rather to be 
regarded as nominative absolute, is met by the 
fact that the use of the nominative absolute is 
precisely an anacolouthon. 


3 Diisterdieck: ‘By καί before ὑμεῖς John 
specifies the promised consequence which will 
correspond to the condition which is stated, 
while at the same time he brings out the nice 
point which is contained in the significant 
interchange of ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ and ὑμεῖς ἐν τῷ 


aR iiss 
ULW « » . MEVELTE. 


CHAP. Il. 25. 539 
result of the Word remaining in us, is explained by the fact that “the words 
of Christ substantially contain nothing else than a self-revelation or explana- 
tion of His person and His appearing, and similarly the evangelical proc- 
lamation of the apostles is only the copy of this preaching of Christ Himself” 
(Weiss). ἐν τῷ υἱῷ is put first, because fellowship with the Father is con- 
ditioned by fellowship with the Son. 

Ver. 25. Kai αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία, κ.τ.2.1 αὐτὴ may be referred either to 
what precedes, or to the concluding words of this verse: τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. 
In the first case the meaning is: and this remaining is what He has prom- 
ised, namely, eternal life. Gagnejus: “ Manere in filio et patre promissio est, 
quam nobis pollicitus est orans pro nobis patrem Dominus Joh. xvii. 20. Bene 
ergo ait de hoe Johannes: haec est promissio, quam pollicitus est nobis, quae 
quidem est vita aeterna; vita enim aeterna est manere in Deo eoque frui hic per 
gratiam, in futuro per gloriam ;” τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον then forms an apposition, 
_by which that very remaining is described as happiness; this view in Oecu- 
menius, and among modern commentators in Sander, Besser, Weiss. In 
the second case the thought is, “and-eternal life is the promise which He 
has given us;” taking this view, a new thought, it is true, enters with 
ver. 25, and it requires something to be supplied to connect it with the pre- 
ceding, perhaps what a Lapide gives: si in ipso maneamus (Spener: that is 
the promise if we remain in the Word, and consequently in the Father and 
the Son); but nevertheless it is, in accordance with the analogy of John’s 
mode of expression, to be preferred; comp. chap. i. 5, ν. 14; similarly also 
chap. iii. 23, v. 11; in the last two passages the connection with what pre- 
cedes appears clearly enough by both being connected with the same idea, 
whereas here there is no previous mention of the ἐπαγγελία ; but even here 
the connection is not to be mistaken, because the ζωὴ αἰώνιος is directly con- 
nected with the μένειν ἐν τῷ vid, x.7.4. This second interpretation in a Lapide, 
Grotius, Lorinus, Russmeyer, Spener, Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck, Erd- 
mann, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, and others. —xai is not used here αἰτιολο- 
γικῶς (Oecumenius), but is the simple copula. — ἡ ἐπαγγελία : “the promise.” 
Liicke unnecessarily conjectures that instead of this perhaps ἀπαγγελία is 
probably to be read, or that ἐπαγγελία has here the meaning, “ proclama- 
tion,” for neither is it the case that the idea of the promise refers only to the 
distant future life, nor, according to John, that Christ does not bestow any 
promise. — αὐτός is Christ, who in this whole passage forms the centre round 
which all the statements of the apostle move. —On the accusative τὴν ζωῆν, 
which has occurred through the attraction of the verb in the relative clause, 
comp. Winer, p. 583 (E. T., 625); Buttmann, p. 68 (E. T., 78). 

Vv. 26, 27. Conclusion of the section on the antichrists. 


1 From this passage it is clear that with 
Jobn ζωὴ αἰώνιος and the knowledge of God 
are not by any means, as Weiss thinks, iden- 
tical ideas; for if John here, according to the 
view of Weiss, describes the abiding in the Son 
and in the Father as the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, he then 
mentions what this consists in, as something 


plainly transcending the idea of knowledge; 
but if αὕτη is directly connected with τὴν ¢. το 
aiwy., then the abiding in the Son and the 
Father is considered as the condition of the 
ζωή; it is impossible, however, for it to be 
the condition of knowledge, for it rather 
presupposes the latter. 


δ40 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Ver. 26. ταῦτα refers to all that the apostle has written about the anti- 
christs from ver. 18 down. In calling them here οἱ πλανῶντες ὑμᾶς, he gives 
it to be understood that their efforts were directed to seduce the Church 
from the truth of the gospel to their lie; that their purpose had actual effect 
(Braune) is not indicated by the verb. — Ver. 27. In the first part of this 
verse the apostle testifies to his readers that they do not need any teacher, 
in which he goes back to what he had already expressed in vv. 20, 21. — 
καὶ ὑμεῖς]. καί is here used just as in ver. 20.— On the anacolouthon, see on 
ver. 24. ---ττὸ χρίσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ' αὐτοῦ]. τὸ χρῖσμα is, with Braune, to be 
regarded as the accusative, for the juxtaposition of two nominatives could 
not be explained; the apostle probably had an ἔχετε in his mind, instead of 
which, however, he then wrote μένει ἐν ὑμῖν ; αὐτοῦ, i.e., Χριστοῦ; so the con- 
text demands; αὐτός, ver. 25. Herein lies a proof that τοῦ ἁγίου in ver. 20 is 
to be understood of Christ. —év ὑμῖν μένει]. The indicative, instead of which 
the imperative is used in ver. 24, expresses the certain confidence of the 
apostle. — καὶ οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε]. This sentence, which by καί is made co-ordi- 
nate with the preceding, stands to it in the relation of conclusion; meaning: 
since, as is not to be doubted, the Spirit is in you—and abiding — you do 
not need; Bengel describes this relation correctly by et ideo. — iva τις διδάσκῃ 
ὑμᾶς]. ἵνα is used here, as not unfrequently in the N. T., in an enfeebled 
signification; only in an artificial way could the original force of purpose of 
this particle be here retained; while this force sometimes passes over into 
that of object, this is still further weakened, so that the clause beginning 
with iva is the object which completes the idea of the verb; so it is here; 
comp. especially Heb. v. 12: χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς; in other passages 
xp. ἔχειν is used even with the simple infinitive, Matt. iii. 14, xiv. 16; 1 Thess. 
i. 8, iv. 9; with iva as here, John xvi. 30.1— Several commentators suppose 
here a reference to the false teachers, so that in the words of the apostle 
there lies a warning against those who wish to impose themselves on the 
Church as teachers; so a Lapide, Spener (τίς = “who may make pretence 
of a new revelation”), Sander, Gerlach, Besser, and others. But it is more 
appropriate (according to ver. 21) to refer the apostle’s word to a teaching 
proceeding from himself or other apostolic teachers; so Hornejus, De Wette- 
Briickner, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, ete. — only we must not restrict the 
generally expressed thought merely to instruction about the false teachers, 
even though it is intended with special reference to that.? Believers need 
no human teacher in order that the divine truth may be made known to 
them. They have received, with the word which was declared unto them 
(ὃ ἤκουσαν), the χρῖσμα, which leads them εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν; therefore the 
apostle frequently in this epistle emphasizes the fact that he does not want 


1 At the most it may be said that ἵνα is 
used with the verb χρειαν ἔχειν, because that 
of which one is in need may be regarded as 
the object of his need; on the other hand, it is 
unsuitable when Braune says: ‘the teaching 
is here regarded as the object and purpose for 
the sake of the position of him who is to be 
taught.” 


2 Liicke paraphrases the passage: ‘‘ The 
reason why I do not write any more about the 
false teachers, is that I assume that that holy 
unction of the Spirit remains in you; and if 
that is so, you do not need that any one shall 
instruct you further on the subject.” 


CHAP. II. 26. 541 


to instruct them, but is writing to them what they already know (οἴδατε πάντα, 
ver. 20). John thereby assumes believing readers, in whose hearts that 
which they have heard from the beginning is preserved true and uncor- 
rupted. Nothing new therefore can be proclaimed to the believers, but only 
that which they already possess in faith may be brought to a clearer con- 
sciousness. — ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χρίσμα, «.7.2.]. In this second part of the verse 
the first question is about the construction. Liicke, Ewald, De Wette, 
Neander, Diisterdieck, Braune (and previously Oecumenius and Theophylact) 
think that the whole to the end of the verse forms one period, in which the 
premise ἀλλ᾽ ὡς. . . διδάσκει is resumed by the words καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμῖν, and 
has its conclusion in yevéite (or μένετε) ἐν αὐτῷ, and in which the words καὶ 
ἀληθὲς... ψεῦδος contain a parenthetical adjunct. The difficulty that in 
the resumed premise καί is put instead of ἀλλά, καθώς, instead of ὡς, and the 
aorist ἐδιδαξεν instead of the present διδάσκει, can certainly be easily got over 
by the fact that the apostle wanted not simply to repeat the thought, but at 
the same time to bring out a new phase of the subject; but the additional 
περὶ πάντων, Which does not stand in any relationship whatever to the conclu- 
sion μενεῖτε (μένετε), is decidedly opposed to this construction; to this is 
added that ἀλλά indicates that the apostle wants to express a contrast to the 
οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε, «.7.4,, that is, a clause in which the teaching of the χρίσμα is 
described as such as removes the need of any other (human) teacher ; finally, 
that the subordinate clause καὶ οὐκ ἔστι ψεῦδος conjoined with ἀληθές ἐστι raises 
this thought above the level of a mere parenthetical adjunct, and stamps it 
as a leading thought. For these reasons it is preferable, with Luther, Cal- 
vin, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Brickner, Besser, and in general most of 
the commentators, to divide the whole into two parts, and to regard καὶ ἀληθ. 
ἐστι... ψεῦδος as the conclusion of the first part; Luther: “but as the 
anointing teaches you all things, it is true, and is no lie; and,” etc.2 — ὡς 
refers not so much to the form and fashion, as to the substance of the teach- 
ing. — τὸ αὐτὸ χρίσμα]. τὸ αὐτό is not IDEM semper, non aliud atque aliud, sed 
sibi constans et idem apud sanctos omnes (Bengel; so also Erdmann), but just 
the same χρῖσμα, namely ὁ ἐλάβετε. Still the reading αὐτοῦ might be preferable, 
for it seems unnecessary to emphasize the fact that the χρίσμα is the same 
that they have received, and no other. — περὶ πάντων is used in the same sense 
as πάντα, ver. 20. --- καὶ ἀληθὲς ἐστι, x.7.A.]. καὶ before the conclusion, as in 
ver. 24: “then it is also true,” etc. ; it brings out prominently the idea ἀληθές; 
ἀληθές is referred to τὸ χρίσμα by Liicke, De Wette, Briickner, Diisterdieck, 
Ebrard, Ewald, Braune, and others; but the substantive ψεῦδος is opposed to 
this connection, for it cannot be referred to τὸ χρίσμα, inasmuch as it is con- 


1 Several commentators rightly remark here, 
that in the statement of the apostle there is no 
foundation for the error of the ““ enthusiasts,” 
inasmuch as John does not separate the 
teaching of the χρῖσμα and the apostolic 
word from one another, but places them in 
the closest connection. 

2 Ebrard makes ws dependent upon ἔγραψα, 
ver. 26; itis true he himself admits that this 


gives a “laze and legere form of speech,” 
but he thinks that there is ‘‘ nothing strange” 
in this, because the apostle is speaking to 
children in quite childlike language. But 
what child’s understanding would be capable 
of supplying with the words: ‘but as the 
same anointing teacheth you of all things,’ 
the thought: ‘sc. I have said to you”’? 


542 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


sidered by John as a person (διδάσκει), and must neither be arbitrarily ex- 
plained, with Beza, by wpevdéc, nor, with Braune, be separated from ἀληθές 
(“and there is no lie in it”); Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Neander, 
Besser, Erdmann, and others, have therefore rightly referred ἀληθές, x.7.2., to 
that which the χρῖσμα teaches. Because this is true, and.is no ψεῦδος, there- 
fore believers do not need any teacher besides, but they may rely entirely 
upon the teaching of the χρῖσμα. To this thought the apostle further adds a 
new one, in which he goes back to the end of ver. 24. —xai καθώς]. καθώς, as 
distinct from wc, means “in proportion as.” — ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς, namely, ἀπ ἀρχῆς. 
— μένετε (ueverte) ἐν αὐτῷ!. The Recepta peveire is taken by Socinus, a Lapide, 
Lorinus, Semler, and others, in the sense of the imperative; others retain 
the future meaning, as in ver. 24; thus Beza says: mihi videtur omnino ser- 
vanda Futuri propria significatio ut est optime sperantis ; as the apostle thereby 
expresses his good confidence, the future accordingly has the vim consolandi 
(Bengel). The correct reading, however, is μένετε, which, corresponding to 
the preceding μένει and ἔχετε, is not imperative (Ewald, Braune), but indic- 
ative (Briickner), and as such it expresses the firm conviction of the apostle 
that they, according to the constant instruction of the χρίσμα, abide ἐν αὐτῷ, 
i.e., in Christ (Erasmus, erroneously: = ἐν τῷ χρίσματι, and Baumgarten- 
Crusius: “in the teaching which the χρῖσμα communicates to them”). In 
favor of this view is also the exhortation of ver. 28 herewith connected.} 
Ver. 28 concludes the section beginning at ver. 18, but serves at the same 
time as an introduction to the following section. — xa? viv cannot, it is true, 
be explained, with Paulus, by “even now already,” but neither can it be 
explained, with most of the commentators, exactly by igitur, or a similar 
word; here it rather introduces, as it frequently does, the following exhor- 
tation as a deduction from the present circumstances. Incorrectly, Ebrard: 
«“ And now (namely, after I have spoken to the παιδίοις) I turn to you” 
(namely, to the whole Church): a supplement of that kind cannot be jus- 
tified from the passages quoted by Ebrard; John xvii. 3; Acts x. 5, xxii. 16. 
—rexvia, a8 in ver. 1. ---- μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ, quite the same thought as in ver. 27. 
Rickli’s view is incorrect, that in ver. 27 it is “the abiding in the confession 
that Jesus is the Christ, but here another abiding, namely, the abiding in 
righteousness,” that is meant. — iva ἐὰν φανερῶθῃ]. ἐάν is distinguished from 
érav (Recepta) in this way, that it describes not the time, but only the actu- 
ality of the manifestation of Christ. The φανέρωσις of Christ is His parousia - 
occurring at the end of the ἐσχάτη ὥρα ; comp. Col. iii. 4. By the same word 
the first appearance of Christ on earth is also elsewhere described; see chap. 
iii. 5, 8. ἔχωμεν (σχῶμεν) παῤῥησίαν]. The communicative form of expression 
indicates that John tacitly includes himself also under the exhortation: 
μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ.3 ---- παῤῥησία : the confidence of the believer at the day of judg- 


1 Myrberg on ver. 28: ‘Sperantis verba 2 Sander introduces here a foreign reference, 
illa sunt, quae paullo ante leguntur; haec when he thinks that John includes himself as 
adhortantis, quod novum quoddam initium if he would also have to be ashamed if on that 
dicendi indicat.” day his children, whom he begot through the 


CHAP. II. 29. 543 


ment; chap. iv. 17.— xa? μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ]. Elsewhere also παῤῥησία 
and αἰσχύνεσθαι are contrasted with one another; so Prov. xiii. 5: ἀσεβὴς 
αἰσχύνεται καὶ οὐχ ἕξει παῤῥησίαν ; comp. also Phil. i. 20. αἰσχυνθῶμεν is either 
used in the passive sense, in which case the original meaning “to be 
shamed” passes over into this, “to be put to shame” (see Meyer on Phil. 
i. 20); then ἀπό (which is not = ὑπό) describes Christ as the one from whom 
this αἰσχύνεσθαι comes, namely, by means of His judgment of condemnation ; 
or it is used in the middle sense: “to be ashamed,” in which case ἀπό is not 
=coram (Luther, Ewald), but = “away from,” thus, “to draw back from 
Him with shame;” so Calvin, Beza, Episcopius, De Wette, Liicke (who 
adduces Sir. xxi. 22: ἄνθρωπος δὲ πολύπειρος αἰσχυνθήσεται ἀπὸ προσώπου), Diister- 
dieck, ἘΡτατά.: The second view deserves the preference, on account of the 
corresponding contrast with ἔχειν παῤῥησίαν. ---- ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ expresses 
definitely the reference already implied in φανερωθῇ : “at His (Christ’s) com 
ing;” παρουσία, in John only here, frequently appears in this sense in the 
N. T.: comp. Matt. xxiv. 3, xxvii. 37, 39; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19, 
and elsewhere. 

Ver. 29. With this verse the third section begins, which continues to 
chap. iii. 22, and consists of two groups: (1) ver. 29-iii. 10a, and (2) iii. 
10-22. — After the apostle has warned them against the love of the κόσμος, 
and against the false teachers (who are ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου), he shows the obliga- 
tion of Christians to δικαιοσύνη, in which they reveal themselves as τέκνα Θεοῦ; 
in contrast to the τέκνα διαβόλου. 

Ver. 29. The apostle now goes on to indicate how it is consistent with 
the nature of Christians, as those that are born of God, to do righteousness. 
— ἐὰν εἰδῆτε]. Here also the apostle directs himself to his readers’ own con- 
sciousness, as he does not want to teach them any thing new, but only to 
state what they already know for their more earnest consideration. — ὅτι 
δίκαιός ἐστι. The present ἐστι is not used, either here or in iii. 5, iv. 17, for 
jv (Storr). It is doubtful whether the subject is Christ (a Lapide, Lorinus, 
Bengel, Rickli, Frommann, Myrberg, first edition of this commentary, etc.) 
or God (Baumgarten-Crusius,-Neander, Gerlach, Késtlin, De Wette, Diister- 
dieck, Erdmann, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, and others). In favor of the 
former is the fact that previously, not only in ver. 25 by αὐτός, and ver. 27 
by ἐν αὐτῷ, but also in ver. 28 by φανερωθῇ, ax’ αὐτοῦ, and ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, 
Christ is clearly meant; for the latter, that in the following ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται 
the pronoun refers back to the subject of δίκαιός ἐστι, and the idea γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ 
Χριστοῦ never appears in the writing, and, moreover, John, in what follows, 


gospel, should come short, Similarly a La- to be retained: ‘“‘ For we shall not draw back 
pide: “Ne pndefiamus utrique, sc. tam vos, and tremble, but we shall be rejected and cast 
si a doctrina Christi aberretis, quam nos out.” but the meaning above stated, and 
Apostoli et Pastores, quod vos in ea non accepted also by Braune, does not suit the 


conservaverimus.” Lorinus:  ‘*Conjungit passive idea; besides, the correspondence 
seipsum discipulis, spe de illorum gloria ad- with the idea ἔχειν παῤῥησίαν demands the 
gaudens.” middle signification of the word. 


1 Braune thinks that the passive meaning is 


ws 


544 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

calls Christians τέκνα Θεοῦ, and in ver. 9 makes use of the expression yeyevyy- 
μένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. iv. 7, v. 1, 4,18). From the predicate δίκαιός nothing 
can be inferred, as this attribute is assigned by John both to God (i. 9) and 
Christ (ii. 1). As, with John’s peculiar blending of the Father and the 
Son (or of God and Christ), it would not be easy to explain how he can pass 
from the one to the other without specially indicating it, it appears more 
safe, in accordance with the constant mode of conception and expression in 
the Epistle, to supply as the subject of δίκαιός ἐστι God, than Christ. It is inap- 
propriate, with Storr, Liicke, and others, to refer δίκαιος to Christ, and ἐξ αὐτοῦ, 
on the other hand, to God, because the thought of the apostle would thereby 
lose its peculiar force (Bengel: justus justum gignit).1— The statement that 
God is δίκαιος corresponds with the statement that He is φῶς (chap. i. 5); it 
does not follow from ver. 28 that by δίκαιος here the justitia judicialis is to 
be understood; Erdmann: quum ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ad δίκαιός ἐστι referendum 
sit, hoc justitiam Dei sensu judiciali significare nequit, sed absolutam ejus sancti- 
tatem. — γινώσκετε is here not to be regarded as the indicative (Beza, Bengel, 
Semler, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald, and others), but, as its position 
between μένετε (ver. 27) and ἴδετε (chap. iii. 1) shows, as the imperative: 
“then know, i.e., observe and reflect,” with Vulgate, Grotius, Russmeyer, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Liicke, Erdmeyer, Ebrard, Braune, and 
others. —ére πᾶς. . . γεγέννηται]. The same relationship in which, accord- 
ing to chap. 1. 6, κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετὰ Θεοῦ and περιπατεῖν ἐκ τῷ φωτί Stand to one 
another, exists between γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ and ποιεὶν τὴν δικαιο- 
σύνην (so also Braune), inasmuch as the latter is the practical proof of the 
former, so that every one who practises righteousness— but no one else 
(Bengel: omnis et solus) —is born of God. That when Episcopius describes 
the nasci ex Deo, not as the condition, but as the result, of the ezercitii jus- 
titiae, he perverts the thought of the apostle, needs no proof. The right 
interpretation in Bengel, Neander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, 
Ebrard, Brickner, Braune, Weiss.?_ By τὴν δικαιοσύνην it is plainly righteous- 
ness, in the full extent of the idea, that is described; with the expression 
ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, compare the synonymous idea ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (chap. 
i. 6); similarly in Hebrew ΠΡῚΣ ΠΣ; Gen. xviii. 19; Isa. lvi. 1; Ps. 
xiv. 15; in the Ν. T. comp. Matt. vi. 1. On ποιεῖν an emphasis is placed 
which must not be overlooked; comp. chap. iii. 18; for now is the truth of 
the experience and of the word first proved in deed. — In ἐξ αὑτοῦ yey., we must 


1 Sander would leave the question unde- 
cided; still he correctly states the alternative: 
“Tf δίκαιος must be referred to Christ, so also 
must ἐξ αὐτοῦ. But if the latter cannot be, 1f 
«£ αὐτοῦ can only be referred to God, then 
δίκαιος must also be referred to God.” 

2 The thought that only he who 1s born of 
God can practise righteousness, 1s not exactly 
expressed here by John, but it is suggested in 
the preceding mas. When Liicke in his 2d ed. 


says: ‘* We might have properly expected ὅτι 
πᾶς ὃ γεγεννημένος ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ποιεῖ THY δικαιο- 
σύνην; but John would appear to have the 
purpose of exciting in his readers the con- 
sciousness of sonship to God in Christ, there- 
fore he states the reversed relation,” —this 1s 
erroneous, since it is rather movecy τὴν δικαιο- 
σύνην that has the chief emphasis; in his 1st 
ed. Liicke correctly stated the thought of the 
apostle. 


CHAP. II. 29. 


545 


retain ἐξ in its proper meaning; explanations which weaken it, such as that 
of Socinus, dei similem esse, or of Rosenmiiller, amari a deo, are of course to 
be rejected (Braune); the relation of the perfect γεγέννηται to the present 


ποιὼν is to be observed. 


1 The definition of Weiss: ‘The being 
born of God is the act by which the known 
nature of God, and therewith God Himself, 
who indeed is received into our entire spiritual 
life as the object of that intuitive knowledge, 
operates determiningly, mouldingly, regener- 
atingly, upon our spiritual and moral being,’ 
is in various aspects unsuitable; for (1) it is 
not so much the act of God as rather the 
activity of man, his knowledge, which is rep- 
resented as causing the being born of God; 
(2) it is erroneous to describe the birth as 
producing, since the birth is the result of the 


generating activity; (3) it is no doubt true 
that the birth is brought about by knowledge, 
for it is only by producing in man the knowl- 
edge of His nature that God produces in 
him the new birth; but, on the other hand, it 
is just as true that the knowledge of God is 
conditioned by the being born of God: only 
he who is born of God knows God; there are 
two grades of the knowledge to be distin- 
guished, namely, the knowledge as condition, 
and knowledge as result, of being born of 
God. 


546 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 1. Instead of δέδωκεν, A, G, read the aorist ἔδωκεν; the Rec. is, however, 
sufficiently attested by the majority of authorities. —The reading ὑμῖν in B is 
not even accepted by Buttm., rightly; for it no doubt owes its existence merely 
to the connection with the second pers. idere. — After κληθῶμεν is found in A, B, 
C, 8, many min. and vss., in Thph., Aug., Bede, the addition καὶ ἐσμέν; the 
Vulg. and other Latin vss. have: et stmus; Oecum. in his comm.: ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν 
τέκνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι τε καὶ κληθῆναι, and Thph. in his comm.: γενέσθαι te καὶ 
λογισθῆναι, According to these authorities, the addition must be: regarded as 
genuine (Lachm., Diisterd., Ewald, Brickner); Tisch. (following G, K, many 
min., Copt., etc.) has not accepted it; many critics (thus even Reiche) explain 
it as a gloss; this it certainly may be —taken from ver. 2; but the overwhelming 
weight of authorities is in favor of its genuineness. Diisterdieck thinks that 
the omission originated in a false explanation of κληθῶμεν, --- Instead of ἡμᾶς, 
& has ὑμᾶς. --- Ver. 2. After οἴδαμεν the Rec. has dé (G, K, etc., Syr., Copt., ete., 
Thph., Oec., etc.), which, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A, B, C, 8, several 
min., etc., is to be deleted; its insertion is easily explained by the apparent 
antithesis to the preceding. — Ver. 4. The Rec. ἡ ἁμαρτία is certified by all the 
authorities; Lachm. omits 7, but, as Tisch. observes, sine teste, for even B, to 
which Lachm. appeals, reads ἡ ἁμαρτίας. After ἐστιν, & (sol.) reads καί, which, 
scarcely genuine, serves to connect more closely the two ideas ἁμαρτία and ἀνομία, 
— Ver. 5. Instead of οἴδατε, τὲ (sol.) reads oidavev, which makes no essential 
difference in the thought. —td¢ ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, Rec., following C, G, K, κα, ete., 
Syr., etc., Thph., Oec., Bede (De Wette); Lachm. and Tisch. omit ἡμῶν, following 
A, B, etc., Copt., Theb., etc., Tert., Aug., etc. The genuineness of ἡμῶν is 
certainly doubtful; perhaps it was omitted at a later date, to generalize the 
idea τὰς ἁμαρτίας ; Reiche regards it as genuine. — Ver. 6. With the reading 
ἑόρακεν in Tisch. 7, comp. chap. i. 1.— Ver. 7. Instead of the Rec. τεκνία (in B, 
G, K, &, etc., vss., min., Thph., Oec., Tert., etc., Lachm.), Tisch. has accepted 
παιδία, after A, C, etc., Copt., ete.; it is difficult to decide; it is possible that 
texvia is a correction for παιδία, a form of address unusual in the Epistle. That 
παιδία, as Ebrard thinks, is a correction, because in the section beginning with 
the address παιδία (chap. ii. 18) the conclusion is περὶ τῶν πλανώντων (ver. 25), and 
here the same verb (μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς) follows the address, has little probability 
in its favor. — Ver. 10. Lachm. in his larger ed. has instead of the Rec. tovav 
δικαιοσύνην, which he had retained in his smaller.ed., the reading ὧν 
δίκαιος, attested by no cod., but only by the Vulg., some other vss., and 
several Fathers (Or., Tert., Cyp., etc.); clearly without adequate reason. — 
The Codd. A, C, K, ete., have before δικαιοσύνην the article τῆν, probably inserted 
in correspondence with ver. 7 and chap. ii. 29.— Ver. 11. Instead of the Ree. 
ἀγγελία, C, &, etc., some vss. read éxayyeAia; probably in accordance with 
chap. ii. 25; De Wette considers it the original reading, just as chap. i. 5; 


CHAP. III. 547 


scarcely correct. — Ver. 18. δὲ has, before μὴ θαυμάζετε, ‘ Kai,” clearly added for 
the purpose of closer connection. — ἀδελφοί, according to A, B, C, &, 27, ete., 
Vulg., ete., Aug., Oros., οἷο, ; recommended by Griesb., accepted by Lachm., 
Tisch.; the Rec. adds μου, after G, K, etc. — Ver. 14. After τοὺς ἀδελφούς & reads 
ἡμῶν, probably a later addition to complete the thought. —dyamav τὸν ἀδελφόν, 
Rec., following C, G, K, Thph., Oecum, ; τὸν ἀδελφόν is, however, a later addition; 
it is not found in A, B, δὲ, ete., Vulg., etc., Aug., etc.; justly omitted by Lachm. 
and Tisch.; its insertion is easily explained; Reiche, however, is of a different 
opinion. — Ver. 15. Instead of αὐτοῦ, as Lachm. and Tisch., or αὑτοῦ, as 
most of the editors read, B has ἑαυτοῦ. -- ἐν αὑτῷ (or better, ἐν αὐτῷ, Tisch.), 
Rec., after B, G, K, ete., Thph., Oec. — Lachm. has accepted ἐν ἑαυτῷ, the reading 
of A, 6, κα, ete. — Ver. 16. Instead of 740 ναι (Rec., according to G, K, ete., Oec.) 
we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the overwhelming evidence of 
A, B, C, κα, ete., the aorist θεῖναι, --- Ver. 18. After texvia the Rec. (following G, 
K, ete.) has μοῦ, the genuineness of which, however, is justly doubted by Griesb. 
— The article τῇ before γλώσσῃ, which is omitted by the Rec., is with certainty 
attested by almost all authorities; it is wanting, however, in 8. — Before ἔργῳ 
the Rec. has omitted ἐν, only on the evidence of Καὶ 3; almost all the authorities 
attest its genuineness; as the co-ordinate ideas are-without ἐν, it was natural 
to omit the preposition with ἔργῳ also.— Ver. 19. Before ἐν τούτῳ the Rec., 
following C, G, K, δὰ, most min., vss., etc., reads καί, which is also accepted by 
Tisch. Lachm. has omitted it; it is wanting in A, B, ete., Vulg., Copt., etc.; 
it is, however, probably genuine ; omitted because it seemed unsuitable for the 
connection. — Instead of γινώσκομεν, Rec., following G, K, etc., Vulg., ete. 
(Tisch.), A, B, Ὁ, &, etc.,1 several vss., etc., read γνωσόμεθα (Lachm.); as the 
latter is the more difficult reading, and besides has the most important 
authorities in its favor, it is to be regarded as genuine, with Ewald, Brickner, 
Braune, contrary to the opinion of Liicke, De Wette, Reiche ; Bengel and De 
Wette think that the following πείσομεν has led to the change of the present to 
the future; but it is just as likely that the indicative is a correction of the 
copyists, in accordance with the frequently-occurring formula ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν, 
li. 3, ili. 24, iv. 2, v.2 (Erdmann). ---τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, Rec., following A**, 
C, G, K, δὰ, almost all min., several vss., Thph., Oecum., Bede; retained by 
Tisch. and Lachm. (in his larger ed.); in the small ed. Lachm. has τὴν καρδίαν 
ἡμῶν, after A*, B, Syr., etc.; the plural was apparently altered to the singular in 
accordance with ver. 20.— Ver. 20. Instead of ὅτι ἐάν, Lachm. and Buttm. read: 
6 τι ἐάν; see on this the explanation of the verse. — The ὅτι before μείζων, which 
Lachm. had omitted in his small ed. (following A, etc., Vulg., ete., Oec., etc.), 
he has again rightly accepted in the larger ed. The change of it to ἔτι, which 
Henr. Stephanus would read, is arbitrary. — Ver. 21. The genuineness of ἡμῶν 
(Rec.) after ἡ καρδία is uncertain; it is found in C, G, K, x, etc. (Tisch.), but 
is wanting in A, B, etc., Vulg., etc. (Lachm.). — The ἡμῶν after καταγινώσκῃ is 
wanting in B and C3; it is, however, hardly spurious, as it is indispensable for 
the sense. Instead of ἔχομεν, attested by almost all the authorities, B has 
ἔχει, originating in a false reference to xapdia, — Ver. 22. Instead of ὃ ἐάν, B 
reads ὃ adv, —Instead of the active form αἰτῶμεν, there is found in & the middle 
form αἰτώμεθα. --- Τὰ opposition to the Rec. παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ (G, K, etc.), ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
deserves the preference, according to the authorities (A, B, C, 8, ete., Lachm., 


τ Liicke, whom Sander copies, says that C does not testify in favor of γνωσόμεθα, but according 
to Tischendorf it certainly does. 


548 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

Tisch.). — The reading τηρῶμεν in & instead of τηροῦμεν is no doubt only a clerical 
error. — Ver. 23. πιστεύσωμεν, Rec., following B, G, K, al. pl., Oec., Tisch.; the 
reading of A, Ὁ, &, etc., Thph., on the other hand, is πιστεύωμεν; recommended 
by Griesb., accepted by Lachm., probably a change in accordance with the 
following present ἀγαπῶμεν; so Reiche thinks. — After ἐντολῆν, ἡμῖν is wanting 
in G, K, etc. (omitted by Tisch.). The most important authorities attest the 
genuineness of ἡμῖν; Reiche, however, regards it as a later edition. — Ver. 24. 
In δὲ the καί is wanting before ἐν τούτῳ; in the same cod. οὐ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν is found 
instead of the Rec. οὐ ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν, 


Ver. 1. From the ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται (chap. ii. 29) the apostle goes on to 
the thought that he and his readers are children of God, whence he deduces 
the necessity that exists for them of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην. First, however, he 
points his readers to the love of God, through which they have become chil- 
dren of God, inviting them to the consideration of it by idete. — ποταπὴν ἀγάπην 
δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us. ποταπός 
(later form for ποδαπός, properly = from whence?) in the N. T., never in the 
direct question, is strictly, it is true, not = quantus, but = qualis (comp. Luke 
i. 29; 2 Pet. iii. 11), but is frequently used as an expression of admiration 
at any thing especially wonderful (comp. Matt. viii. 27; Mark xiii. 1; Luke 
vii. 39), so that the meaning of gualis passes over into that of quantus; and 
so it is to be taken here 8]50. --- ἀγάπην διδόναι only here; διδόναι is more 
significant than ἐνδεικνύναι or a similar expression; it means, “to give, to be- 
stow.” God has made His love our property (so also Braune). It is quite 
incorrect to take διδόναι = destinare, and, weakening the thought, ἀγάπην as 
metonymous for “ love-token” (Grotius), or for effectum charitatis (Socinus).+ 
The reference which Calvin finds in the word, when he says: quod dicit 
DATAM esse caritatem, significal: hoc MERAE esse liberalitalis, quod nos Deus pro 
Jiliis habet, is not indicated by John. — On ἡμῖν a Lapide remarks: indignis, 
inimicis, peccatoribus. —The name ὁ πατῆρ points to the following τέκνα Θεοῦ. 
—iva τέκνα Θεοῦ κληθῶμεν]. Paulus, De Wette, Liicke, etc., retain iva in its 
original meaning; “the greatness of the divine love,” says Liicke, “lies in 
the sending of the Son” (chap. iv. 10). This thought is correct in itself; 
but the apostle is not here thinking of the sending Christ; it is therefore 
arbitrary to supply it; here there is in his mind only the fact that we —as 
believers —are called the children of God: “ This is the proof and the result 
of love” (Spener); iva is accordingly used here in modified signification, 
synonymous with ἐν τούτῳ, ὅτι, only that by iva the τέκνα ©. κληθ. is more defi- 
nitely described as the purpose (not, however, as the object of an act distin- 
guished from it) of the love of the Father; Ebrard unsuitably gives the 
meaning by the explanation zor, dy. δέδωκεν qu. ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ βούλεσθαι iva, K.T.A., 


1 A Lapide interprets ἀγάπην in the Catholic 
interest : i.e., “‘ charitatem tum activam (actum 
amoris Dei quo nos mire amat), tum passivam 
nobisque a Deo communicatam et infusam. 
Videte quantam charitatem ... nobis... 
praestitit et exhibuit Deus, cum .. . charita- 
tem creatam nobis dedit et infudit, qua filii 


Dei nominamur et sumus.’’— Very appropri- 
ately Luther, in his Scholia: ‘‘usus est 
Joannes singulari verborum pondere: non 
dicit, dedisse nobis Deum donum aliquod, sed 
ipsam caritatem et fontem omnium bonorum, 
cor ipsum,”’ etc. ᾿ 


CHAP. III. 1. 549 
inasmuch as the love of God is bestowed on us, not in His will, but in the 
act which is the outcome of it.—«adAeio@ac is erroneously explained by 
Baumgarten-Crusius = ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν γενέσθαι, John i. 12, so that the sense 
would be: “that we have the right to dare to call ourselves God’s children” 
(Neander); it is very common to take καλεῖσθαι = εἶναι, Augustin: hic 
non est discrimen inter dici et esse; this is so far correct as the name, which is 
here spoken of, inanis esse titulus non potest (Calvin), for: “where God gives 
a name, He always gives the nature itself along with it” (Besser); the εἷναι 
is included in the καλεῖσθαι; yet the very fact of being called is significant, 
for it is only in the name that the being is revealed, and it is through that 
giving of a name that the separation of believers from the world is actually 
accomplished. iva... κληθῶμεν is usually translated, “that we should be 
called.” Ewald adds, “at the day of judgment,” but it is not the future, 
but the present, that is here spoken of; κληθῶμεν is therefore not to be taken 
as the subj. fut., but as the subj. aor.: “that we were named, and therefore 
are called.” Braune would explain the apostle’s expression in this way, that 
being children of God is “a work only gradually accomplished, an opera- 
tion;” incorrectly, for “being the children of God” is certainly “a simply 
stated fact;” comp. the καὶ ἐσμέν and ver. 2. Instead of τέκνα αὐτοῦ, John 
says τ. Θεοῦ, because he wants to state the full name itself. The view of 
Baumgarten-Crusius has less in its favor, that the apostle contrasted πατῇρ 
and Θεοῦ in order to indicate: “He bestowed it on us lovingly, that we should 
be connected with the Godhead, inasmuch as the former describes the divine 
will, the latter the divine nature.” — καὶ ἐσμέν, which according to the ma- 
jority of authorities is scarcely a mere gloss (see the critical notes), says 
John in an independent form, not depending on iva (the Vulgate errone- 
ously = simus), in order still more specially to bring out the element of 
being, which was certainly contained already in κληθῶμεν. --- Not in order to 
comfort believers in regard to the persecutions which they have to suffer 
from the world (De Wette, Liicke, etc.), but to specify the contrast in which 
believers as τέκνα Θεοῦ stand to the world, and the greatness of the love of 
the Father who has given them that name, the apostle continues: διὰ τοῦτο ὁ 
κόσμος ob γινώσκει ἡμᾶς]. διὰ τοῦτο refers back to the preceding thought (Beng- 
el, De Wette, Briickner, Braune); thus: therefore, because we are children 
of God; the following ὅτι then serves to confirm the reason why the world 
does not know us as children of God. It is true, διὰ τοῦτο might be also 
directly referred to ὅτε (Baumgarten-Crusius, also perhaps Liicke, Ewald) ; 


1 Ebrard thinks that ἐσμέν may be depend- 
ent upon ἵνα, not certainly according to Butt- 
mann’s, but according to John’s grammar; 
incorrectly, for the present indicative after 
tva is not surely attested in John even by a 
single passage, whilst it is unmistakably in 
Paul, 1 Cor. iv. 6, and Gal. iv. 17 (comp. in 
addition, Al. Buttmann, p. 202, note [E. T., 
234]); it therefore appears most probable that 
kat ἐσμέν is added by John, not indeed as a 
triumphant exclamation, but as an utterance 


about the actual present state of his readers, 
confirming the preceding. If ἐσμέν is re- 
garded as dependent on ἵνα, we are compelled 
to weaken the idea κληθῶμεν, for Ebrard’s 
supposition that in κληθῶμεν is contained the 
relationship of God to us, or the element of 
** being reconciled,” and in ἐσμέν, on the other 
hand, “ our relationship to God, or the element 
of the conversion and renewal of our nature,” 
lacks any tenable ground. 


δδ0 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


but with this reference the sentence would come in too disconnectedly. — 
With ὁ κόσμος comp. chap. ii. 15. — οὐ γινώσκει means, “ does not know us,” 1.e., 
our inner nature, which we as τέκνα Θεοῦ possess, is to the world something 
incomprehensible; to it, alienated from God, what is godly is strange and 
inconceivable: compare John xiv. 17. Many commentators unnecessarily 
deviate from this proper meaning of the word; thus Grotius, who inter- 
prets it = non agnoscit pro suis; Semler = nos rejicit, reprobat ; Baumgarten- 
Crusius = μισεὶ (“therefore the world cannot endure us, because it cannot 
endure Him — God ”). — ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν, “for it did not know Him” (namely, 
God or the Father). S. Schmid erroneously explains ἔγνω by credere in Deum; 
Episcopius, by jussa Dei observare ; John’s idea of knowledge is to be retained, 
as in the case of γινώσκει, so also in ἔγνω (Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune). 
Ver. 2. After emphatic resumption of ἐσμέν, the apostle indicates the 
yet concealed glory of the τέκνα Θεοῦ. He begins with the address ἀγα- 
πητοί, Which occurs to him here the more readily as he feels himself most 
closely connected with his readers in the common fellowship with God (so 
also Diisterdieck). — viv τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμέν]. viv is used in reference to the 
future (οὔπω); it is here a particle of time, not = “now, in consequence of 
that decree” (De Wette); a contrast with what immediately precedes (Liicke: 
“amidst all mistake on the part of the world, we are nevertheless really now 
the children of God;” so also Diisterdieck and Braune) is not suggested 
by it. Hereby the present glory of the believing Christian is described; 1 
before the apostle mentions the future glory, he observes that this is yet 
concealed: καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη Ti ἐσόμεθα]. φανεροῦσθαι may, as Ebrard 
remarks, mean “to be actually revealed,” or, “for the knowledge to be re- 
vealed; ”’ most commentators rightly take the word here in the first mean- 
ing; it is true, Ebrard maintains that this explanation is grammatically 
impossible, because gavepdw, as governing a question, can only have the 
meaning of theoretical revelation; but this assertion is unfounded, for in 
the N. T. usus loquendi (nay, even in the classics) the interrogative τίς, some- 
times ri, confessedly appears where, according to the rule, the relative should 
properly be used; comp. Winer, p. 158 f. (E. T., 168), Al. Buttmann, p. 216 
(E. T., 250 f.); and especially if the thought involves an assumed question, 
as is the case here.? That φανεροῦσθαι cannot here be understood of the theo- 
retical revelation, is clear—(1) from the fact that no ἡμῖν is put with it, 
which Ebrard arbitrarily inserts when he interprets, “it has not yet been 
revealed to us, no information about it has yet been communicated io us;” 
(2) from the fact that the apostle himself immediately afterwards says what 


1 De Wette incorrectly remarks on ἐσμέν: times at the least very remote, thus with 


‘*by destiny, by faith and aspiration or idea; ” 
John rather signifies by ἐσμέν the actual 
reality. 

2 Acts xiii. 25 is especially to be compared. 
According ‘to Buttmann, the interrogative is 
used for the relative only after predicates 
which haye a certain similarity with the verda 
sentiendi, etc., thus especially after ἔχειν 
(Mark viii. 1, 2); yet this similarity is some- 


δοθήσεται, Matt. x. 19, and with ἑτοίμασον, 
Luke xvii. 8, where Buttmann finds himself 
compelled to supply a connecting verb. Be- 
sides, a similarity with the verba sentiendi is - 
not to be denied to the verb davepovabar, even 
if it does not describe the theoretical revela- 
tion, for the coming out of concealment in- 
cludes the becoming visible. 


» 


CHAP. III. 2. 551 
Christians will be in the future; (8) from the fact that a confession of 
present ignorance is at variance with the natural connection; from the fact 
that with this view a very artificial thought results for the following words, 
οἴδαμεν, x.7.4.; See below. — By οὔπω ἐφανερώθη, x.7.A., the apostle accordingly 
states that the future condition of those who at present are τέκνα Θεοῦ is still 
concealed, has not yet come to light (comp. Col. iii. 3; Rom. viii. 18).1 
This future state is, it is true, something different from the present, yet it 
is not absolutely new, but is that “which is latent and established in the 
present” (Diisterdieck, Braune). — οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, x.7.4.]. By οἴδαμεν 
the apostle expresses his own and his readers’ consciousness of that which, 
as τέκνα Θεοῦ, they will be in the future. — With φανερωθῇ we must supply 
τί ἐσόμεθα, the meaning is the same as it previously has; so it is correctly 
explained by Didymus, Augustine, Socinus, Grotius, Paulus, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, De Wette, Semler, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Braune, etc. As 
Ebrard similarly supplies τί ἐσόμεθα, but understands φανερωθῇ here also of the 
knowledge, there results from him this thought: “we know rather that when 
it shall be made known to us, we shall even already be like Him,” in which 
“the emphasis is made to rest on the contemporaneousness of the theoretical 
φανεροῦσθαι With the actual ὅμοιοι ἔσεσθαι; " but in this interpretation, which 
suffers from unjustifiable supplements, a reference is brought out as the 
chief element of the thought which is in no way indicated, and is foreign to 
the context. — Some critics supply with φανερωθῇ as subject Χριστός, as in 
chap ii. 28, so Syrus, Calvin, Beza, Hornejus, Calov, Semler, etc. (Myrberg 
at least thinks that this is not omnino improbabile); this is, however, erro- 
neous, as in this φανερωθῇ What immediately precedes is clearly resumed. It 
is self-evident that this revelation will take place ἐν τῇ rapovoia Χριστοῦ; comp. 
11, 28. — ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα]. αὐτῷ, i.e., Deo, cujus sumus filii (Bengel); the 
idea remains, indeed, essentially the same if αὐτῷ is taken = Χριστῷ (Storr), 
but the context decides in favor of the first explanation. The apostle says: 
we shall be to God ὅμοιοι, not ico, because likeness to God will not be uncon- 
ditioned, but conditioned by the nature of the creature, as a creature; in so 
far ὅμοιος may be translated by “like,” only this idea has something indefinite 
in it, and therefore Sander not unjustly says that “thereby the point of the 
thought is lost.” As John himself does not more particularly define this 
future ὁμοιότης of man with God, the commentator must not arbitrarily restrict 
the general idea on the one side or the other, as, for instance, by the refer- 
ence to the “light-nature of God” (Ebrard), or the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (Diisterdieck), 
or the δόξα Θεοῦ (De Wette).2— dri ὀψόμεθα αὐτόν, καθώς ἐστι. This sen- 
tence states the logical ground of the foregoing; Calvin, correctly: ratio haec 
ab effectu sumta est, non a causa; so that the sense is: “ because we shall see 


1 Ebrard groundlessly asserts that this view 
amounts to a tautology: ‘our future state is 
still future;’”’ for according to it the apostle 
rather expresses the thought that the future 
condition of the τεκνα Θεοῦ will be distin- 
guished from the present; in which, plainly, 
there is not the slightest tautology contained. 


2 Baumgarten-Crusius and others quote on 
this passage 2 Pet. i. 4: κοινωνοὶ τῆς θείας 
φύσεως; this is (as Briickner also remarks) 
unsuitable, for in this expression the author 
of that Epistle does not say what the Christian 
will be one day, but what he already is; it 
therefore corresponds rather to the texva Θεοῦ, 


bbe THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Him as He is, we therefore know that we shall be like Him” (Rickli; so 
also Socinus, S. Schmidt, Erdmann, Myrberg, etc.). It is a different thought 
in 2 Cor. iii. 18, according to which Bengel explains: ex aspectu, similitudo 
(similarly Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iv. 38, says: ὅρασις Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας), 
according to which the sense is: “the beholding is the cause of the likeness” 
(Spener; similarly Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Neander, Kostlin, Diist- 
erdieck, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, etc.). But John does not here want to 
explain whence the ὅμοιον εἶναι τῷ Θεῷ comes to the believer, but on what the 
οἴδαμεν is based. The certain hope of the Christian is that he shall see 
God. In that hope there lies for him the certainty that he will one day be 
like God; for God can only be seen by him who is like Him.1. When Rickli 
remarks on ὀψόμεθα: “not a bodily vision of Him who is ‘Spirit; it is the 
spiritual beholding, the knowledge of God in His infinite divine nature” 
(similarly Frommann, p. 217), or when others interpret this ὁρῶν simply by 
“to know aright,” and similarly, this is contrary to the sense of the apostle; 
for as the word itself indeed shows, an actual seeing is meant. For man in 
his earthly body, God is certainly invisible; but it is different with the glori- 
fied man in his σῶμα πνευματικόν (1 Cor. xv. 44); he will not merely know 
(the believer has knowledge already here), but see God; and, moreover, no 
longer δι’ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, but πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 
Compare, on the seeing of God, Matt. v. 8; 2 Cor. ν. 7; Rev. xxii. 4. — By 
καθώς ἐστι the entire reality of the nature of God: “as He is, not merely in a 
copy, etc., but in Himself and in His nature, His perfect majesty and glory” 
(Spener), is described.2 The relation of the single parts of this verse is 
usually regarded by the commentators as adversative; certainly viv and 
οὔπω form an antithesis, but the connecting καί shows that the apostle con- 
sidered the first two thoughts less in their antithesis to one another than in 
their co-ordination, inasmuch as it occurred to him to emphasize them both 
equally : both that believers are now really τέκνα Θεοῦ, and also that a glory 
as yet concealed —namely, likeness to God—awaits them. Between the 
third and fourth parts also, a sort of antithesis occurs (hence the Recepta dé), 
but here also the apostle is not anxious to bring out this contrast, but rather 
to add to the negatively-expressed thought, for its confirmation, the positive 
substance of Christian consciousness; comp. De Wette-Briickner, Braune. 
Ver. 3 shows the moral effect of the Christian hope; not the condition 
with which the fulfilment of it is connected, as Liicke thinks. The same 


1 To Diisterdieck’s question, Why then did 
not the apostle write: ὀψόμεθα αὐτόν, ὅτι ὅμοιοι 
αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα it is a valid reply: because he 
did not want to represent the beholding of God, 
but likeness to God, as the purpose of the 
divine love. 
explanation by 2 Cor. iii. 18 is inappropriate, 
because John describes the future condition 
of the children of God, not as a becoming 
like, but as a being like (ἐσόμεθα). 

2 Calvin: “‘Deus nunc se nobis conspici- 
endum offert, non qualis est, sed qualem 
modulus noster eum capit.” Weiss rightly 


The justification of the rejected 


obseryes that the emphasis is laid on καθώς 
ἐστιν; but il is incorrect for him to place this 
in contrast with His manifestation in the Son; 
for God has not revealed Himself in Christ 
otherwise than καθώς ἐστι. --- As a curiosity 
the explanation of Oertel may be given here: 
*‘One day after several centuries, mankind, 
which now belongs too much to the spirit of 
barbarism, will become more glorified, more 
ennobled, and more happy, and thus attain to 
the perfect knowledge of the plan of God and 
the purpose of Jesus.” 


CHAP. III. 4. De 


combination of ideas, only in the form of exhortation, occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 
18 and vii. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 13, 14. — πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην én’ αὐτῷ, namely, 
the hope of one day being like God.1 “In the case of πᾶς ὁ ἔχ. we can, as 
in ii. 29, bring out the converse in the meaning of the apostle: every one 

. and only such” (Diisterdieck). The phrase ἔχειν ἐλπίδα ἐπί with dative 
only here; Acts xxiv. 15: ἔχ. ἐλπ. εἰς Θεόν ; but ἐλπίζειν ἐπί with dative: Rom. 
xv. 12 and 1 Tim. vi. 17. — airé, i.e., Θεῷ]. God is regarded as the basis 
on which the hope is founded. The idea of maintaining (Spener) is not 
contained in ἔχειν. ---- ἁγνίζει ἑαυτὸν καθὼς, x.7.A.]. ἁγνίζειν (comp. on 1 Pet. 
i. 22), not “to keep one’s self pure” (ἃ Mons, Bengel, Russmeyer, etc.), but 
“to purify one’s self, i.e., to make one’s self free of every thing that is unholy ;” 
in Jas. iv. 8 it is used synonymously with καθαρίζειν. This self-purification 
necessarily follows from the Christian’s hope, because the object of this is ~ 
to be like God, and therefore also to be holy. —JIn reference to the opinion 
that this purification is described as an act of man, Augustine says: videte 
quemadmodum non abstulit liberum arbitrium, ut diceret: castificat semetipsum. 
Quis nos castificat nisi Deus? Sed Deus te nolentem non castificat. Castificas 
te, non de te; sed de illo, qui venit, ut habitet in te. The active impulse of this 
dyvigew ἑαυτόν does not lie in the natural liberum arbitrium of man, but in 
the hope, which the salvation work of God presupposes in man. — This 
purification takes place after the pattern (καθώς) of Christ (ἐκεῖνος, ver. 4), 
who is ἁγνός, i.e., “pure from every sinful stain.” The want of harmony 
which exists in the juxtaposition of the dyvigew ἑαυτόν of the Christian and 
the ἁγνὸν εἰναι of Christ, must not induce us to take καθώς here otherwise 
than in ver. 7, 11. 6, iv. 17, namely = quandoquidem, so that this clause 
would add a second motive for the dyvigew ἑαυτόν, as Ebrard thinks; the 
sense rather is, that the purity of Christ is the pattern for Christians, 
which the Christian by self-purification strives to copy in his life also. — 
ἐστί: “the ἀγνότης is a quality inherent in Christ” (Liicke); the present 
is not put for the preterite, but signifies the unbroken permanent state; 
chap. ii. 29. 

Ver. 4. The believer is so much the more bound to holiness, as all sin 
is ἀνομία. ---- πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν, k.t.A., corresponding to the beginning of ver. 3, πᾶς 
ὁ ἔχων, x.7.A, The apostle is anxious to emphasize the truth of the thought 
as being without exception. ποιεὶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, as the antithesis of 
ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, Chap. ii. 29, is contrasted with ἁγνίζειν ἑαυτόν, ver. 33 as 
the apostle ‘‘ wants to contrast with the positive sentence, ver. 3, its negative 
counterpart,” “he begins with the antithesis of that idea which formed the 
predicate in ver. 3, and makes it the subject” (Ebrard). The definite 
article shows that the idea, according to its complete extent, is intended 
as definite, as forming the concrete antithesis to ἡ δικαιοσύνη 2 both the 


1 Ebrard groundlessly would understand 
by ἐλπίς the treasure which is the object of 
the hope. 

2 Braune, however, rightly observes that 
too strong an emphasis is not to be laid here, 
either upon the article: or on ποιεῖν; for in 


ver. 9 it is put ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖν, and then, as 
synonymous with it, simply ἁμαρτάνειν; 
nevertheless, it is to be noticed that ‘‘the 
fuller idea ποιεῖν τὴν ἀμ. at the beginning 
includes and determines the others, ποιεῖν ap. 
and ἁμαρτάνειν" (Ebrard). 


554 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, 


interpretation of Socinus: “to remain in sin,” and that of Baumgarten- 
Crusius: “to receive sin into one’s self, to let it exist in one’s self,” are alike 
arbitrary; even the very common definition: “to sin knowingly and 
wilfully,” is out of place here, as the subject here is not the way in which 
sin is done, but the actual doing of sin itself. According to Briickner,} 
by ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν “an actual moral tendency of life” is indicated; this 
explanation is apparently justified by vv. 6, 8, 9, but even in these passages 
the apostle’s meaning goes beyond the restricted idea of “tendency of life,” 
inasmuch as he certainly has sinning in view. — καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖ]. “καὶ 
accentuates the idea that the very doing of ἁμαρτία is as such equally the 
doing of ἀνομία" (Diisterdieck) ; by ἀνομία we are to understand, according 
to the constant usus loquendi, never the mere non-possession of the law 
(differently ἄνομος, 1 Cor. ix. 21), but always the violation of the law, 
namely, of the divine law, of the divine order according to which man 
should regulate his life, — lawlessness (Liicke).2_ The sense therefore is: he 
who practises sin (in whatever way it may be) thereby makes himself guilty 
of the violation of divine order, he acts contrary to the θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, chap. 
ii. 17. According to Ebrard, τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖν expresses the antithesis of 
ἔχειν τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην, ver. 3; but it is more correct to perceive in that 
sentence — instead of a conclusion —the introduction of a new element, 
by which the sharp contrast with τὴν δικαιοσύνην (11. 29) is indicated. — The 
following words, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν 7 ἀνομία, are added, partly to confirm the 
previous thought, partly to mark emphatically the identity of ἁμαρτία and 
dvouia Which is expressed in it. The apostle does not want to give an exact 
definition of the idea ἁμαρτία (contrary to Sander), but to indicate its nature 
from the side “on which its absolute antagonism to any fellowship with 
God appears most unrestrictedly ” (Brickner). The apostle could not more 
sharply express the antithesis between the character of the believer, who is 
a τέκνον Θεοῦ, and will be ὅμοιος Θεῷ, and the ἁμαρτία, than by showing ἁμαρτία 
to be ἀνομία, whereby he most distinctly opposes the moral indifferentism 
against which the first section of the Epistle is also directed. Violence is 
done to the thought, both by limiting the idea ἁμαρτία to a particular kind 
of sin (a Lapide: loquitur proprie de peccato perfecto, puta mortifero), and by 
making ἀνομία the subject and ἁμαρτία the predicate ;* so also by mixing up 
references which are foreign to the context. The καί by which the two 


1 Briickner rightly rejects the interpreta- 
tion of De Wette: ““ἁμαρτία appears to be 
the broader idea, ἀνομία the narrower, more 
definite and stronger, including particular 
offences, vices, etc.” 

2 ἀνομία is distinguished from ἀδικία (i. 9, 
v.17) in this way, that the former idea is 
contrasted with abstract right (δίκη), the 
latter with the concrete form of right (νόμος) 
(Briickner). 

3 Kostlin (p. 246) appeals in behalf of this 
construction to John i. 1: και Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, 
assuming that καὶ ἁμαρτία, x.7.A., is to be 
read; see, however, the critical notes. Against 


this construction there is, besides, the fact 
that ἁμαρτία would have to be taken in a 
different sense here from that in which it is 
previously used, namely, as KoOstlin says: 
“The first time ἁμαρτία means sinful action; 
the second time, guilt in the sight of God.” 

4 This is the case, for example, in Hilgen- 
feld’s explanation: ‘‘ Not every one who 
deviates from the ceremonial laws, but only 
the sinner, falls under the category of avo- 
μία; not less in the remark of Calvin: ‘ the 
sum of the thought is that the life of those 
who give themselves to sin is hateful to os 
and cannot be tolerated by God.” 


CHAP. III. 5. 555 


sentences are connected with one another, Bengel translates and explains 
by: immo (so also Briickner by “nay”), with the remark: non solum 
conjuncta est notio peccati et iniquitatis, sed eadem; this is incorrect, for even 
the first sentence expresses, not a mere connection, but identity. The 
apostle could have written instead of καί the confirmatory particle ὅτι, or 
the like, but by means of καὶ the thought of the second clause obtains a 
more independent position (so also Braune). 

Ver. 5 contains a new proof of the incompatibility of the Christian life 
with sin; this exists in Christ, to whose example the apostle has already 
pointed in ver. 3. Of Christ, John states two things, while he appeals to 
the consciousness of his readers (οἴδατε; the same is the case with the 
reading of x: οἴδαμεν) ---- (1) that His manifestation (ἐφανερώθη, an expression 
which refers to the previously unrevealed existence of Christ in héaven) 
had this purpose: iva τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ; and (2) that He is without sin. — 
τὰς ἁμαρτίας αἴρειν may, of course, mean in itself “to bear our sins,” i.e., as 
the atoning sacrifice, in order thereby to procure their forgiveness, but here 
it means “to take away, to remove our sins;” for even although the Hebrew 
expression [}}} δὲ} signifies both, yet the LXX. translates this in the second 
sense only by αἴρειν, but in the first sense by φέρειν (comp. Meyer on John i. 
29, and my commentary on 1 Pet. ii. 24); moreover, aipew with John 
constantly means “to take away;’’ comp. xi. 48, xv. 2, xvii. 15, xix. 31, 38; 
and the context is also decisive in favor of this meaning, for even though 
in the thought that Christ bore our sins, inasmuch as He suffered for them, 
there lies a mighty impulse to avoid sins, yet the antagonism of the Christian 
life to sin appears more directly and more strongly if the taking away of sins 
is described as the purpose of the manifestation of Christ. Kostlin (p. 180) 
rightly says: “ The expression signifies, to take away the sins themselves, but 
not their guilt or their punishment, for it is added: καὶ du. ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν, 
and in ver. 8: ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου. This interpretation in Calvin, Luther, 
Russmeyer, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Frommann (p. 449), 
Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, etc., contrary to which Liicke, 
De Wette, Erdmann, etc., explain αἴρειν = “to bear;” Liicke: “the object 
of the manifestation of Christ is the bearing of sins as a holy offering in 
His death;” while others, as Bede (“tollit et dimittendo quae facta sunt et 
adjuvando ne fiant et perducendo ad vitam, ubi fieri omnino non possint”), 
Socinus, a Lapide, Spener, Sander, Besser (also Liicke in his 1st ed.),} 
combine both meanings. Weiss, it is true, interprets aipe correctly, but 
thinks that the plural ἁμαρτίας “can only signify actually existing sins” 
which Christ takes away, “inasmuch as His blood cleanses us from their 
guilt;” but in the whole context the subject is not the guilt of sins, but the 
sins themselves. The plural, however, by no means renders that interpre- 
tation compulsory. — The pronoun ἡμῶν after τὰς ἁμαρτίας (see the critical 


1 Aipew τ, au. ἡμῶν corresponds to the the ideal sense by the act of forgiving sin, and 
καθαρίζειν ἀπὸ πάσης au., i. 7, and signifies also in the real sense by the act of sanctifying 
the whole extent of the redemptive activity of the saved,” 

Christ, His office of taking away sin, both in 


556 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


notes) is regarded by Liicke and De Wette as genuine ; Liicke: “ because 
John would otherwise have written τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ;" De Wette: “because its 
pmission appears to be occasioned by the interpretation of aipew = to 
remove;” Diisterdieck remarks against ἡμῶν, that in the whole section vv. 
4-10 there is no direct application expressed ; from internal grounds it cannot 
be decided, inasmuch as τὰς ἄμαρτ. ἡμῶν can be taken quite as generally as the 
simple τὰς ἁμαρτίας. In regard to the plural τὰς ἁμαρτίας, Diisterdieck rightly 
says that “thereby the form of representation is made so much the more 
vivid, as the whole mass of all individual sins is taken into view.” It is to 
be observed, that John does not regard Christ, according to the Pelagian 
mode of thought, only as the motive for the free self-determination of man, 
but as the active living cause of sanctification determining the will of 
man. It is His crucifixion especially from which proceeds, not only the 
forgiveness of sins, but also (in and with this) the new life, in which 
the believer purifies himself (ἁγνίζει), even as He is pure (ἁγνός). --- The 
second thing which John states of Christ is: καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστι. 
The meaning of these words is not that in those who are in Christ there is 
no sin (Calvin, Paulus), but that Christ Himself is without sin; com. ver. 
3, ii. 29. This clause is not meant to confirm the preceding one (a Lapide: 
ideo Christus potens fuit tollere peccatum, quia carebat omni peccato, imo potes- 
tate peccandi; so also Oecumenius, Lorinus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, 
Neander); but it is co-ordinate with it (Liicke, De Wette-Briickner, 
Diisterdieck, Braune), in order to serve as a basis for the following state- 
ment. — The present éori is not used instead of the preterite (Grotius), nor 
is it to be explained in this way, with Winer (p. 251 [E. T., 267]), that 
“the sinlessness of Jesus is considered as still present in faith;” but it 
rather denotes, as in ver. 3, the character of Christ in its eternal existence. 
Ver. 6. πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ (1.6., Χριστῷ) μένῶν refers back to the exhortation in 
li. 27; μένειν, not merely = inesse, expresses close fellowship. — οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει]. 
John hereby states the abiding in Christ and sinning as irreconcilable oppo- 
sites; still it is not his meaning, that the believing Christian does not sin 
any more at all, or that he who still sins is not in Christ, for in i. 8-10, 
ii. 1, 2, iii. 8, he clearly enough expresses that sin still clings to the Chris- 
tian, and that he therefore needs constantly both the forgiving and saving 
grace of God, and the intercession of Christ, as well as self-purification. 
The solution of the apparent contradiction must not be sought by giving 
the word ἁμαρτάνειν here a meaning different from what it has elsewhere 
(8 g. = persistere in peccato; or with Capellus = sceleratum esse, or = to com- 
mit peccata mortalia); nor even by appealing to the apostle’s ideal mode of 
conception (De Wette, Diisterdieck; substantially also Weiss and Briick- 
ner),! for “John has here to do with real cases, and wants to indicate to us 
the marks by which it may be known whether a man loves the Lord or not, 
whether he is a child of God or of the wicked one” (Sander), as is clear 


1 ‘When Weiss (and Briickner agreeing with and owght to be,”’ the expression of the apostle 
him) says ‘that John here represents the is explained by him also from its idealism. 
Christian life as according to its nature it is 


GHAP. IM, 6. δὺο 


from φανερὰ ἐστι, ver. 10; but only in the fact that the Christian, who is a 
τέκνον Θεοῦ, bears the contradiction in himself that he, on the one hand, it is 
true, still actually sins, but, on the other hand, is also actually free from 
sin —so free from it that he cannot sin (ver. 9); he has actually broken 
with sin, so that in his most inner nature he is in the most decided opposi- 
tion to it; yet at the same time he finds it in himself, and indeed in such a 
way that he still actually sins (chap. i. 10), but inasmuch as he confesses it, 
and experiences the forgiving and saving love of the faithful God towards 
him (chap. i. 9), and with all earnestness practises the dyvigew ἑαυτόν, it ever 
loses more and more its power over him, and thus it results that it is no 
longer sin, but opposition to it (as something foreign to his nature), that 
determines his conduct of life; and hence the apostle may with perfect justice 
say, that he who abides in Christ does not sin (so also Braune),! which is 
quite the same as when Paul says: εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις" τὰ ἀρχαῖα πα- 
ρῆλθεν, ἰδού, γέγονε καινὰ τὰ πάντα (2 Cor. v. 17). —The antithesis expressed 
in the first clause is even more sharply brought out in the second, inasmuch 
as John does not say πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων... οὐ μένει ἐν αὐτῷ, but οὐχ ἑώρακεν 
αὐτόν, οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν .--- πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων is every one who leads a life 
in ἀμαρτία, and therefore has not come out of the κόσμος into the number of 
God’s children;? such an one, says John, hath not seen neither known αὐτόν, 
i.e., Christ. Liicke takes the perfects ἑώρακεν and ἔγνωκεν in present signifi- 
cation, the former in the meaning of “the present possession of the experi- 
ence,” the latter in the meaning of “the present possession of previously 
obtained knowledge;” but this is not rendered necessary by the context, 
and hence the perfects are to be retained as such, although it must be ad- 
mitted that John is considering the result as one that continues into the 
present. The meaning of the two verbs in their relation to one another is 
very differently explained; according to some commentators, ἑώρακεν signifies 
something inferior (Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke in his first edition), 
according to others, something superior (Socinus, Neander, Frommann, 
p. 223), to ἔγνωκεν. With the former view, οὐδέ is taken as = “and still less; ” 
with the latter, as = “and not as much as.” Both are incorrect, for a dif- 
ference of degree is in no way suggested. Yet the two expressions are not to 
be regarded as synonymous, so that ἔγνωκε would only be added to bring out 
the spiritual meaning of éwpaxev (Diisterdieck); for, although οὐδέ can neither 
be necessarily “disjunctive” (Liicke, first edition) nor “conjunctive ” (Liicke, 


1 Besser appropriately says: ‘‘Every one 
who abides in Christ, to whom He once be- 
longs, does not sin, but says ‘No’ to sin, 
which belongs to the old man, and resists its 
alien power. A Christian does not do sin, but 
he suffers it. His will, his Christian ego, is 
not at one with sin. Hatred of sin is the 
common mark of the children of God; love 
of sin, the common property of the children 
of the Devil. Augustine’s explanation: “in 
quantum in Christo manet, in tantum non 
peccat,”” is unsatisfactory, because it would 
thereby appear as if the inner life of the 


Christian were something divided in itself; but 
it is more correct when he says. ‘‘ Etsi infir- 
mitate labitur, peccato tamen non consentit, 
quia potius gemendo luctatur. 

2 Ebrard says this explanation is opposed 
to the context, because ‘‘ even from ver. 4 the 
subject is such as are Christians, but are lack- 
ing in holiness, and it is only in ver. 6 that it 
is stated how far such Christians cannot be 
regarded as truly regenerate; ’’ but (1) do not 
the unregenerate Christians still belong to the 
κόσμος and (2) does not that explanation 
refer precisely to the close of the 6th verse? 


558 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


second edition), yet the form of the clauses shows, inasmuch as the object is 
put along with each verb, that οὐδέ here has a stronger emphasis, and that 
John wanted to express by the two verbs two distinct ideas. In order to 
determine these, the original signification of the words must be retained. 
ὁρᾷν signifies neither “the mere historical knowledge of Christ” (Liicke), 
nor the perseverantia communionis cum Christo (Erdmann), and γινώσκειν sig- 
nifies neither “the experience of the heart,” nor even “love;” but even here 
ὁρᾷν means to see, and γινώσκειν to know: but the seeing of Christ takes place 
when the immediate consciousness of the glory of Christ has dawned upon 
us, so that the eye of our soul beholds Him as He is in the totality of His 
nature; the knowing of Him when by means of inquiring consideration the 
right understanding of Him has come to us, so that we are clearly conscious 
not only of His nature, but also of His relation to us.! 

Ver. 7. While the apostle would reduce the specified antithesis to the 
last cause, and thereby bring it out in all its sharpness, he begins the new 
train of thought, connected, however, with the preceding, after the impres- 
sive address texvia (or παιδία), with the warning directed against moral indif- 
ferentism: μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς, Which, as Diisterdieck rightly observes, is not 
necessarily founded on a polemic against false teachers (Antinomians, for 
instance); comp. chap. i. 8. --- ὁ ποιὼν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, δικαιός ἐστι καθὼς, K.T.A., 
with ποιεῖν τὴν dux., comp. chap. ii. 29. From the connection with the fore- 
going we would expect as predicate either ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν, x.7.2. (ver. 6), or 
ἐν αὐτῷ μένει (ver. 5); but it is peculiar to John to introduce new thoughts 
and references in antithetical sentences. By the subordinate clause καθὼς 
ἐκεῖνος (1.6., Χριστὸς) δίκαιός ἐστι, he puts the idea δίκαιος in direct reference to 
Christ, so that the thought of this verse includes in it this, that only he who 
practises δικαιοσύνη has known Christ and abides in Him; for he only can be 
exactly καθὼς Χριστός (i.e., in a way corresponding to the pattern of Christ), 
who stands in a real fellowship of life with Him. It is incorrect, both to 
interpret, with Baumgarten-Crusius: “he who is righteous follows the ex- 
ample of Christ,” and also to take δίκαιος = “justified,” and to define the 
meaning of the verse thus: “only he who has been justified by Christ does 
righteousness.” ?— There is this difference between the two ideas: ποιεῖν τὴν 


1 With this interpretation that of Sander, or known Christ. When Erdmann defines 


who interprets ἑώρακεν of ‘spiritual intuition 
or beholding,” and ἔγνωκεν of the “* knowledge 
obtained more by reflection along the lines of 
dialectic and inquiry,’ as well as that of Myr- 
berg, according to which the former signifies 
the ‘“immediata perceptio Christi spirituali 
modo homini se manifestantis,”’ the latter the 
**perdurans cognitio atque intelligentia,”’ are 
in substantial agreement. Braune, it is true, 
assents to this view; but he erroneously thus 
defines the thought of the apostle: ‘Every 
one who sins, and inasmuch as he sins, is one 
in whom the seeing and knowing of Christ is 
a thing of the past, but does not continue and 
operate into the present;” for John plainly 
says of him who sins that he haus not seen 


ἔγνωκεν as the ‘‘cognitio Christi, quae et in- 
tuitu et intellectu non solum personae Christi 
verum etiam totius ejus operis indolem com- 
plectitur,” this is in so far unsuitable, as the 
intuitu belongs precisely to the ἑώρακεν. Very 
unsatisfactory is Ebrard’s explanation, that 
ὁρᾷν is ‘‘the seeing of Christ as the light, 
γινώσκειν the loving knowledge.” The differ- 
ence between ὁρᾷν and γινώσκειν appears also 
in this, that in the former the operating 
activity is represented rather on the side of 
the object, which presents itself to the eye 
of the soul; in the latter, rather on the side of 
the subject, which this verb makes the subject 
of consideration. 

2 As there is no reference here at all to 


CHAP. III. 8. 509 
δικ. and δίκαιον εἶναι, that the first signifies the action, the second the state. 
The reality of the latter is proved in the former. He who does not do right- 
eousness shows thereby that he is not righteous.! 

Ver. 8. ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν forms the diametrical opposite of ὁ ποιῶν τὴν 
δικαιοσύνην, inasmuch as it signifies the man whose life is a service of sin, 
“who lives in sin as his element” (Sander). While the former belongs to 
Christ, and is a τέκνον Θεοῦ, the latter is ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου: ἐκ does not 
signify here either merely connection (De Wette), or similarity (Paulus), or 
imitation (Semler), but, as the expression τέκνον τοῦ διαβόλου (ver. 10) shows, 
origin (so also Ebrard): the life that animates the sinner emanates from 
the Devil; “not as if the Devil created him, but that he introduced the evil 
into him” (Russmeyer). The apostle confirms the truth of this statement 
by the following words: ὅτι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει. The words az’ ἀρχῆς 
are put first, because the chief emphasis rests on them, inasmuch as those 
who commit sin are ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου, not because he sins, but because it is he 
who sinneth az ἀρχῆς. From this expression it must not, with Frommann 
and Hilgenfeld, be inferred that John was considering the Devil as an origin- 
ally evil being, — in dualistic fashion (comp. Kostlin, p. 127, and Weiss, 
p- 132 ff.),—for John is not here speaking of the being, but of the action of 
the Devil. In order not to accuse John of the Manichaean dualism, the 
attempt has been made to define dz’ ἀρχῆς more particularly, either by refer- 
ring it to the creation of the world (Calvin, 5. G. Lange; also Hofmann, 
Schriftbew., second edition, I. 429- “since the beginning of the world;” or, 
“from the beginning of history, in the course of which the sin of men has 
begun”); or, to res humanae (Semler); or, to the time of the Devil’s fall 
(Bengel: ex quo diabolus est diabolus): but all these supplements are purely 
. arbitrary. Many modern commentators take the expression in reference to 
the sin of man, and find this idea expressed in it, that “the Devil is related 
to all the sins of men as the first and seductive originator” (Nitzsch, Syst. 
der christlichen Lehre, sixth edition, p. 244 f.); thus Liicke, Diisterdieck, 
Ebrard, Weiss, Braune, and previously in this commentary: but this 
thought, while it no doubt lies in the preceding ἐκ τοῦ dsaBdAov and in the 
following τέκνον rod διαβόλου, and hence in the thesis to be established, does 
not lie in this confirmatory clause, apart from the fact that in ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς 
ἁμαρτάνει no reference is indicated to the sin of man. It is otherwise in 
John viii. 44, where the more particular definition of the relation of the 
Devil to men is supplied with ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς from the context (“since he has put 
himself in connection with men”): here, on the-contrary, John does not 
say “what the Devil is to men, but what is his relationship to God” (Hof- 
mann as above); but as he describes his relationship by ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἁμαρτάνει, 


justification, there is no ground whatever for 
the assertion of a Lapide, that the thought of 
this verse forms a contradiction to the Prot- 
estant doctrine of justification by faith. —’The 
interpretation of Lorinus, that ὁ ποιῶν τὴν dex. 
is = ‘qui habet in se justitiam, i.e., opus 
gratiae, videlicet virtutem infusam,” is also 
plainly erroneous. 


1 Braune rightly proves, against Roman 
Catholics and Rationalists, that ‘‘ the predicate 
is not first attained after what is expressed in 
the subjective clause has taken place,” and 
that rather ‘‘ the predicate is immanent in the 
subject.” 


560 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

as a sinning which has continued from the beginning, this can only mean 
that the Devil’s first action was sin, and that he has remained and remains 
in that action. Likewise in the interpretation which Briickner gives of 
dn’ ἀρχῆς, “i.e., 80 long as there is sin,” ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς does not receive its full 
force.1 — The present ἁμαρτάνει describes the sinning of the Devil as uninter- 
ruptedly continuous. — εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη, «.7.A,]. As vv. 6, 7, refer to the 
second part of ver. 5, these words refer to the first part of that verse: they 
not only express the antithesis between Christ and the Devil, but they bring 
out the fact that the appearance of Christ has for its object the destruction 
of the ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου, i-e., of the ἁμαρτίαι which are wrought by him (not 
“the reward of sin,” Calov, Spener; nor “the agency that seduces to sin,” 
De Wette). λύειν is used here as in John ii. 19 (similarly 2 Pet. iii. 10-12), 
in the meaning of “to destroy;” less naturally some commentators (a La- 
pide, Lorinus, Spener, Besser, etc.) maintain the meaning “to undo,” sins 
being regarded as the snares of the Devil. 

Ver. 9. Antithesis of the preceding verse; yet what was there the sub- 
ject is here—in its opposite—the predicate, and what was there the 
predicate is here the subject. — πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ]. Antithesis to 
him who is ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου (ver. 8); “by πᾶς the general signification of the 
clause is indicated” (Braune) ; ἀμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ is used in the same sense as 
To be born of God and to commit sin are mutually 
exclusive contraries ; for ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι, καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὑτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία, chap. 
i. 5; comp. also chap. ii. 29; the child is of the same nature with him of 
whom he is born. For confirmation of the thought, John adds: ὅτι σπέρμα 
αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένε. Both the deeper context and the expression itself are 
opposed to the interpretation of these words, according to which σπέρμα is 
explained = τέκνον, and ἐν αὐτῷ = ἐν Θεῷ (Bengel, Lange, Sander, Steinhofer) ; 
for if the apostle meant to say that ‘‘a child of God remains in God,” 
he would certainly not have exchanged the word τέκνον, which so naturally 
would suggest itself just here, for another word, unusual in /his sense. 
By σπέρμα Θεοῦ is rather to be understood the divine element of which 
the new man is produced? (comp. Gospel of John i. 13), and which, as the 
essence of his being, keeps him from sin. According to many commenta- 
tors (Clemens Α]., Augustine, Bede, Luther (1),3 Spener, Grotius, Besser, 
Weiss, Ewald, etc.), this is the word of God, in favor of which appeal is 
made not only to the parable of the sower (Matt. xiii.), but also to 1 Pet. 
i. 23 and Jas.i.18. But that parable can here so much the less be adduced, 


οὐχ duaprave, ver. 6. 


1 The idea that the Devil, before he sinned, 
was for a time without sin, is nowhere ex- 
pressed in Scripture; neither in Jobn viii. 44 
nor in the deutero-canonical passages Jude 6 
and 2 Pet. ii. 4 (see my comm. on these pas- 
sages). — The view of Frommann, that John’s 
statements do not justify the representation of 
a personal existence of the Devil, that “he is 
nothing further than the world-spirit that 
tempts man, considered in concrete person- 
ality,” is to be rejected as arbitrary. 


2 Frommann (p. 170) incorrectly interprets 
σπερμα Of the divine light originally dwelling 
in man, by which he is distinguished from the 
rest of creation; for the subject here is not 
men as such, but the τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

3 In his second edition Luther says: ‘‘ He 
calls the cause of our change a seed, not a full 
ear of corn, but what is cast into the ground, 
and must first die there; from thence there 
now results true repentance, so that it is ac- 
cordingly said: he cannot sin.” 


CHAP. III. 9. 561 


as in it the reference is to the seed of planis; but here, as the allusion to 
the idea γεγεννημένος shows, “the comparison is made to the seed of human 
birth, as in John i. 18” (Neander); and in the two other passages the word 
is not represented so much as the seed, but as the means of producing the 
new life.1 It is scarcely to be doubted that the apostle was here thinking 
of the Holy Spirit; the only question is, whether he means the Spirit 
Himself, the πνεῦμα ἅγιον in His divine personality (so Beza: sic vocatur 
Spiritus sanctus, quod ejus virtute tanquam ex semine quodam novi homines 
efficiamur ; Diisterdieck and Myrberg; also, perhaps, Liicke and De Wette), 
or the Spirit infused by Him into the heart of man, the germ of life com- 
municated to his nature (Hornejus: nativitatis novae indoles, Semler: nova 
quaedam et sanctior natura; so also Ebrard, Braune, and others). The 
figurative expression is more in favor of the second view than of the first, 
only this germ of life must not, on the one hand, be regarded as something 
separate from the Holy Spirit Himself,? nor, on the other hand, as love 
(a Lapide, Lorinus), for this is the life which has proceeded from the 
σπέρμα, but not the σπέρμα itself. — The thought that he who is born of God 
does not commit sin is still further emphasized by the words καὶ ov δύναται 
ἁμαρτάνειν, whereby, of course, not the physical, but no doubt the moral, 
impossibility of sinning is described; both ideas, ἁμαρτάνειν as well as οὐ 
δύναται, are to be retained in their proper meaning, and not to be arbitrarily 
perverted ; ἁμαρτάνειν must here, just as little as in ver. 6, be restricted to 
mortal sins (a Lapide, Gagnejus), or to “sinning in the way in which they 
who are of the Devil sin” (Besser), or “to sinning knowingly and wilfully ” 
(Ebrard), or even merely to the violatio charitatis (Augustine, Bede); but 
just as little is the pointedness and definiteness of οὐ δύναται to be weakened 
and to be explained = aegre, difficulter potest, or similarly, for the apostle 
here wants to bring out the absolute antagonism which exists in general 
between being born of God and committing sin (so also Braune); comp. 
on ver. 6. With regard to the question as to the relationship of the thought 
expressed here to Heb. vi. 4 ff., comp. the remark on chap. ii. 19. — As in 
the case of the first thought of this verse, so here to this second one a 
confirmatory clause is added, namely: ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται; it is true, 
the idea of the subject seems to be here repeated (similarly John iii. 31: 
ὁ ὧν ἐκ τῆς γῆς, ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστι), but here ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ is put first, whereas in the 
subject it follows γεγεννημένος, by which that idea is strongly accentuated ; 
Bengel: priora verba: ex Deo, majorem habent in pronunciando accentum, quod 
ubi observatur, patet, non idem per idem probari, collato initio verso. The sense 
therefore is: Because he is born of God (comp. chap. i. 5), he who is born 
of God, i.e., the believer, cannot sin. 


1 Weiss appeals to chap. ii. 14; but from 
the fact that John there says: ὁ λόγος τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, it does not follow- that 
σπέρμα is here = ὁ λόγος τ. ©.; 80 much the 
less as there is no reference there to being 
born of God. It is more appropriate in con- 
nection with σπέρμα to refer to chap. ii. 27. 

2 Briickner inversely first interprets σπέρμα 


as the πνεῦμα τ Θ.; but then adds: ‘and, 
indeed, in this way, that the principle of life 
which operates on man is at the same time 
regarded as the germ of life planted in man.” 
8 Grotius explains: ‘“‘ res de qua agitur 
aliena est ab ejusmodi ingenio,” Paulus: 
‘not absolutely impossible, but: his whole 
spirituality and habit (!) are opposed to it.” 


568 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Ver. 10a concludes the development of the thought with the sharp 
antithesis of the children of God and the children of the Devil. —é τούτῳ 
is by most commentators justly referred to the preceding, inasmuch as in 
ver. 9 the characteristic sign of the τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, and in ver. 8 that of the 
τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, are stated. Some commentators, however (a Lapide, 
Grotius, S. Schmidt, Spener, Episcopius, Ebrard, etc.), refer it to what 
follows; but as in this only the one part of the antithesis is resumed, this 
reference is found to necessitate an arbitrary supplement. The explanation 
of a Lapide is clearly quite erroneous: hae sunt duae tesserae et quasi duo 
symbola filiorum et militum Dei, se. justilia et caritas. — φανερά ἐστι]. The εἶναι 
ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and equally the εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου, are in their principle internal, 
and therefore concealed: it is by the different ποιεῖν that the different 
nature is disclosed; comp. Matt. vii. 16.— The expression, τὰ τέκνα τοῦ 
διαβόλου, nowhere else in the N. T. except in Acts xiii. 10: υἱὸς διαβόλου, is 
easily explained from ver. 8; comp also John viii. 44. Sander supposes a 
distinction between these and the children of wrath, Eph. ii. 3; while the 
latter name signifies all who are not born again, the former only signifies 
those among them “who despise the grace offered to them in Christ, and 
wantonly set themselves against it.” This is, however, incorrect, as the 
whole conduct of men falls under the contrast of ἁμαρτάνειν and οὐχ ἁμαρτάνειν, 
so the distinction of τέκνα τοῦ Θεοὺ and τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, that is based on 
it, equally embraces the whole of humanity (see also Braune). Socinus 
accordingly with justice says: Ex Apostoli verbis satis aperte colligi potest, 
quod inter filios Dei et filios Diaboli nulli sint homines medit. 

Vv. 105-22. This section treats on brotherly love as the substance of 
δικαιοσύνη, and is therefore most closely connected with the foregoing; it is 
the commandment of Christ (ver. 11), instead of which hatred reigns in the 
world (vv. 12, 13); with love, life is connected; with hatred, death (vv. 14, 
15); in Christ we possess the ideal and example of love (ver. 16). True 
love consists not in word, but in deed (vy. 17, 18); it produces firm confi- 
dence towards God, and obtains an answer to prayer (vv. 19-22). 

Ver. 10. Transition to the section on brotherly love. — πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν 
δικαιοσύνην refers to ver. 7, and further to chap. ii. 29; the meaning of ποιεῖν 
δικαιοσύνην is here the same as there; only that the idea δικαιοσύνη is indicated 
by the article as definite and restricted; comp. ver. 8: rv,duapriav; ver. 9. 
ἁμαρτίαν. ---οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ = οὐκ ἔστιν τέκνον Tov Θεοῦ. ---καὶ ὁ μὴ 
ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ]. Calvin correctly says: hoc membrum vice 
expositionis additum est. The ἀγάπη is not a part of the δικαιοσύνη (Bengel, 
Spener, Lange, Neander, Gerlach), still less something different from the 
δικαιοσύνη, Which must be connected with it (Rickli), or even forms an antith- 
esis to it (Socinus) ;1 but it is the essence and nature of the Sixaocivn (80 
also Braune),? or rather the δικαιοσύνη itself in reference to the brethren ; 


1 While Socinus understands by δικαιοσύνην may be true of love to God only, but not of 
ποιεῖν ** juste vivere ex praescriptione Mosaicae love to the brethren; but Christian brotherly 


legis et ipsius humanae rationis,’”’ he explains love is, according to John, certainly identical 
ἀγάπη as the transcendent Christian virtue of with love to God, for the Christian loves his 
sacrifice for the brethren, brother as ore who is born of God. 


1 Ebrard and Myrberg object to this, that it 


CHAP. III. 11, 12. 563 


comp. Rum. xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14; Col. iii. 14; 1 Tim. i. 5; John xiv. 15. 
Besser: “brotherly love is the essence of all righteous life;” it is related to 
δικαιοσύνη just as to the περιπατεῖν καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε, chap. ii. 6. Ebrard 
erroneously tries to prove from the αὑτοῦ which is added, that ἀδελφός = ὁ 
πλησίον, Luke x. 86, and is therefore used differently from ii. 9, 10, 11, iv. 
20, 21, for that John in this relative sentence passes on to the love of 
Christians towards one another is quite clear from ver. 11; the αὑτοῦ only 
shows that, though in the foregoing the antithesis between the regenerate 
and the unregenerate is quite generally stated, this is for the special con- 
sideration of Christians. It is incomprehensible that the view, according 
to which John in this section speaks of Christian brotherly love (i.e., the 
love of Christians towards one another), is in antagonism with Matt. v. 44; 
1 Cor. iv. 12 (according to Ebrard). The co-ordinating καί is epexegetical 
= “namely;” it is unnecessary to supply οὐκ ἔστιν éx τ, ©. 

Ver. 11. ὅτι confirms the thought expressed in the foregoing, that he 
who does not love his brother is not of God. —airn ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία]. αὕτη 
refers to the following iva, with a retrospective allusion to ἀγαπῶν τ. dd, αὑτοῦ. 
The word ἀγγελία = “ message,” is here to be taken in the meaning of “com- 
mission,” “commandment.” With the reading ἐπαγγελία, comp. i. 5. By the 
words fv ... ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, which do not refer to the Old-Testament period 
(Grotius: etiam sub lege), or to “the beginning of history ” (Ebrard), the 
commandment of brotherly love is characterized as the ἀγγελία which is 
necessarily connected with the preaching of the gospel; comp. chap. ii. 7. 
— iva, x.7.4., states, not the purpose for which the ἀγγελία is given, but the 
import of it, as frequently with words of wishing, commanding, etc. ; comp. 
Buttm., p. 203 8.1 The ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους shows that the apostle is in this 
section treating of the love of Christians towards one another; it is self-evi- 
dent that the Christian has to fulfil the general commandment of love, even 
to those who are not Christians. Yet John does not here enter on that, as 
it would be inappropriate, for he has here to do with the ethical antithesis 
between Christians as children of God and those who are opposed to them 
as children of the Devil; it is only on the ground of this antithesis that it 
can be said μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, ii. 15. 

Ver. 12. The converse of Christian brotherly love is the hatred of the 
world, which has its example in Cain. —ob καθὼς Κάϊν, x.7.2.]. Contrary to 
the opinion of Grotius, with which Liicke agrees, that before καθώς we must 
supply “οὐκ ὠμεν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ᾿" dependent on iva, De Wette has shown the 
clumsiness of speech that would result with this construction; it is unjusti- 
fiable, however, on the side of the thought also, for it is impossible that 
John would say that to Christians the commandment has been given from 
the beginning, not to be ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Most commentators supply after οὐ 
the thought “we should be disposed,” and after Κάϊν the relative ὅς. Thus 
there certainly results a good sense; but if the apostle had thought thus, he 


1 Braune would have the idea of purpose tained as a task in the gift of the message,” he 
retained; but in his interpretation: ‘it is not quite overlooks the fact that if ἵνα = in order 
merely the substance of a commandment that that (and only thus is the original idea of 
is treated of, but a commandment which is con- purpose retained), it cannot refer to αὕτη. 


564 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

would also have expressed himself thus; at least he would not have left out 
the ὅς. De Wette rightly finds here “an inexact comparison of contrast, as 
John vi. 58, only still more difficult to supply, and just on that account not 
to be supplied,” i.e., by a definitely formulated sentence (so also Braune). 
Christians are (and therefore should also show themselves as) the opposite 
of Cain; they are ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Cain was ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ: τοῦ πονηροῦ is not neuter, 
but masculine; ὁ πονηρός = 6 διάβολος ; comp. especially Matt. xiii. 38.1— καὶ 
ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ]. This murder of his brother is the evidence that 
Cain was ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. The verb σφάζειν (besides here, only in the Apoca- 
lypse), strictly used of slaughter, indicates the violence of the action;? the 
diabolical character of it is brought out by the following: καὶ χάριν τίνος, k.7.2.5 
the form of the sentence in question and answer serves to bring out emphat- 
ically the thought contained in it, that the hatred of Cain towards his brother 
was founded in his hatred towards the good, i.e., that which is of God, for 
it is just in this that the hatred of the world towards believing Christians is 
also founded.® The correspondence between ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ and τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ 
πονηρώ, Which J. Lange and Diisterdieck have already noticed, is to be 
observed. 

Ver. 138. If Cain is the type of the world, it is not to be wondered at 
that the children of God are hated by it; accordingly the apostle says, μὴ 
θαυμάζετε, x.7.A.; comp. ver. 1; not exactly to comfort his readers about it, 
but rather to bring out the antithesis clearly; Neander: “it must not sur- 
prise Christians if they are hated by the world; this is to them the stamp 
of the divine life, in the possession of which they form the contrast to the 
world.” — The particle ei expresses here neither a doubt nor even merely 
possibility ; for, that the world hates the children of God, is not merely pos- 
sible, but in the nature of the case necessary; it is only the form of the 
sentence, and not the thought of it, that is hypothetical ; ¢ comp. John 
xv. 18, also Mark xv. 44. 


1 The strange rabbinical view of the devil- 
ish nature of Cain in Zohar on Gen. iv. 1: 
* Rabbi Eleazar dixit : Cum projecisset serpens 
ille immunditiem suam in Evam eaque illam 
suscepisset, remque cum Adam _habuisset, 
peperit duos filios, unum ex latere illo im- 
mundo et unum ex latere Adami; fuitque 
Cain similis imagine superiorum h. e. Angelo- 
rum et Abel imagine inferiorum h. e. homi- 


num, ac propterea diverse fuerunt viae istius: 


ab illius viis. Equidem Cain fuit filius spiritus 
immundi, qui est serpens malus; Abel vero 
fuit filius Adami; et propterea quod Cain 
venit de parte Angeli mortis, ideo interfecit 
fratrem suum.” 

2 From the fact that σφάζειν is used in the 
Revelation of ‘slaying in a holy service, as 
the martyrs are slain, even though by the 
godless”’ (which is never quite appropriate, 
comp. Rey. vi. 4), it cannot be concluded that 
John here used the expression in order “to 
mark the death of Abel as a martyrdom by the 


hand of a godless man, or as a sacrifice which 
Cain offered to his god, the Devil.” 

8 That Cain slew his brother because his 
own works were evil and his brother’s right- 
eous, does not seem to correspond to the 
Mosaic narrative, for τὰ ἔργα are not the offer- 
ing, but the works in general (Spener: “ the 
whole manner of life’’); but there is no real 
contradiction, for the narrative in Genesis 
does not exclude the idea that the piety of 
Abel had already excited in Cain hatred 
towards his brother, and that, when God 
despised his offering, but had respect unto 
his brother’s, this hatred went so far that he 
became guilty of murder. Cain with his 
hatred, and Abel in his suffering on account 
of his δικαιοσύνη, serve the apostle as proto- 
types of the world and of the children of 
God. On the similar view in Philo and in 
the Clementine Homilies, see Liicke on this 
passage. 

4 Ebrard explains εἰ incorrectly: “ when- 


CHAP. III. 14, 15. 565 

Ver. 14. The contrast of love and hatred is at the same time one of life 
and death. — ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν]. ἡμεῖς forms the antithesis of ὁ κόσμος. Though 
the world hate us and persecute us to death, as Cain killed his brother, we 
know, ete. — ὅτι μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν] Comp. Gospel of 
John y. 24; the perfect shows that the subject is a present and not merely 
a future state; moreover, the apostle does not say that the Christian has 
received the title to eternal life (Grotius: juri ad rem saepe datur nomen rei 
ipsius), but that the believer has already passed from death into life, and 
therefore no longer is in a state of death, but in life. By ζωῇ is to be under- 
stood not merely the knowledge of God (Weiss), but holy life in truth and 
righteousness ; by θάνατος, not merely the want of the knowledge of God 
(Weiss), but unholy life in lying and sin. The natural man is fallen in 
lies and unrighteousness, and hence wretched ἐν θανάτῳ: by the salvation of 
Christ he enters from this state into the other, the essence of which is happi- 
ness in truth and righteousness.1_ That the Christian, as such, is in a state 
of a7, he knows from the fact that he loves the brethren; brotherly love is 
the sign of the ζωή; therefore the apostle continues: ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς. 
- ὅτι refers, as most commentators rightly interpret, to οἴδαμεν and not to 
μεταβεβήκαμεν (Baumgarten-Crusius, Késtlin); the relation between Gf and 
ἀγάπη is, namely, not this, that the latter is the originating cause of the 
former (Lyra: opera ex caritate facta sunt meritoria), but both are one in their 
cause, and are only distinguished in this way, that ζωῇ 15 the state, ἀγάπη the 
action of the believer: out of the happy life, love grows, and love again pro- 
duces happiness; therefore John says: ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν (sc. τὸν ἀδελφόν, see the 
critical notes) μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, by which the identity of not loving and of 
abiding in death is directly brought out.2— It is not without a purpose that 
the apostle contents himself here, where he has only to do with the simple 
antithesis to the preceding, with the negative idea, μὴ ἀγαπᾷν, with which 
the ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ μένει also corresponds; it is only in the following verse that 
the negation reaches the form of a positive antithesis. — μένει expresses here 
also the firm, sure being (so also Myrberg); it is therefore used neither 
merely in reference to the past, nor merely in reference to the future. 

Ver. 15. πᾶς ὁ μισῶν, instead of the preceding μὴ ἀγαπῶν; not loving, and 
hating, are one and the same thing: for pure indifference is not possible to 
the living human soul. — ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστί]. This word (except only in John 
viii. 44, used of the Devil) does not signify the murderer of the soul, whether 


ever the case occurs,” for the hatred which is 
here spoken of is not a frequently occurring 
case, but a necessary relationship. Braune 
unintelligibly says: ‘* by εἰ John signifies that 
his readers as a whole or as individuals have 
after all at present no hatred to endure.” 

1 By this expression * μεταβεβήκαμεν, x.T.A., 
the apostle describes Christians as having 
been, previously to their believing, ἐν τῷ θανά- 
τῳ, hence also not yet τέκνα tov Θεοῦ ; contrary 
to the assertion of Hilgenfeld, that the author 
of the Epistle shared the Gnostic view of the 
original metaphysical difference in men. 


2 Besser: ** Where hatred is, there is death; 
where love is, there is life; nay, love itself is 
life.” Weiss erroneously maintains that here, 
‘instead of the strict converse in the form of 
a progressive parallelism, just that is men- 
tioned which is the result of the non-transition 
from death to life, namely, the abiding in 
death,” for John did not need to say actually 
that he who has not passed from death to life 
is in death. 

8 Wrongly, Nicol. de Lyra: ‘* Odisse pejus 
quam non diligere.” 


566 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


one’s own or one’s brother’s, but the murderer in the strict sense. Every 
one who hates his brother is a murderer, not merely inasmuch as hatred 
sometimes leads to murder, but because by his nature he is inclined to the 
destruction of his brother, and if he does not attain this object is only hin- 
dered from it by other opposing forces. As in the moral life it is not the 
outward act in itself, but the intention, that is of consequence, every one 
who lives in hatred towards his brother must by the moral consciousness 
(or by God, Drusius, Hornejus) be regarded as a murderer; comp. Matt. 
y. 21 ff., 27, 28. — Hence it is clear that the real thought of the apostle is 
missed when μισεῖν is here limited to the odium perfectum (Hornejus). Baum- 
garten-Crusius erroneously denies that ἀνθρωποκτόνος refers to Cain, ver. 12; 
this reference is clearly patent. — καὶ οἴδατε]. De Wette: “whence? from 
the Christian consciousness in general.” — ὅτι πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος, κ.τ.λ.]1. He 
who takes his brother’s life can not and must not retain life himself, his life 
decays in death; that is the order appointed by God; comp. Gen ix. 6 
Accordingly he who in his heart murders his brother, cannot be in possession 
of the life which dwells in the heart, i.e., of “eternal life.” By ζωὴ αἰώνιος 
we are to understand the same thing as in ver. 14 was described by the 
simple word (7; and ἔχει is to be retained as the actual present: errone- 
ously, a Lapide: non habebit gloriam vitae. — The adjective μένουσαν Liicke, 
with whom Sander agrees, appealing to the parable of the unmerciful ser- 
vant, explains by the fact that John is speaking to Christians who already 
had some part in eternal life. But the expression πᾶς ὁ μισῶν shows that 
John is here speaking quite generally, and, indeed, in order to confirm the 
preceding thought, 6 μὴ ἀγαπῶν μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ ; it must therefore be the con- 
dition of those who form the κόσμος (to whom also the mere nominal Chris- 
tians belong), of those accordingly who have no part in the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, that 
is stated. By μένουσαν is therefore not suggested the loss of a previously 
possessed good; just as little as in the corresponding passage, Gospel of 
John v. 38: τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμὶν μένοντα, Where also the meaning 
is not that those addressed have previously had the word of God, for this is 
distinctly denied in ver. 57. The μένουσαν is rather explained by the fact 
that he alone really has the ζωὴ αἰώνιος in whom it abides (comp. chap. 11. 19); 
μένειν expresses here also, according to John’s usus loquendi, the idea of being 
in a strengthened degree, and may accordingly be used quite apart from any 
reference to the previous state; μένουσαν is to be connected with ἐν αὐτῷ; he 
has not the life abiding, i.e., surely and firmly existing, in him. 
Vy. 16-18. Description of true love. 


1 It is incorrect to say, with Braune: “ by 
μένουσαν the existence of eternal life from 
baptism, etc., is indicated,’’ since in the con- 
text there is no reference whatever to baptism, 
instruction, etc., and the advantage resulting 
therefrom. Weiss artificially explains: ‘“‘ John 
supposes the case of a person having eternal 
life, and now goes so far as to say that even 
such an one may not haye it permanently at 
least, but may be in the condition of losing it 
if by hating his brother he becomes a mur- 


derer;’’ such a case John would not and could 
not at all assume. Very strange is Ebrard’s 
interpretation: “‘ supposing that the murderer 
had at the time the ζωὴ αἰώνιος in him (which, 
however, according to ver. 9, is not possible in 
the full (!) sense), yet this would not remain 
in him, he would again fall away from the ζωή 
(which just for this reason could not be genu- 
ine),”? as well as his assertion that ζωὴν αἰών. 
is here used without the article, because John 
could not ascribe to him who is not a true 


CHAP. III. 16. 567 


Ver 16. Whilst he who belongs to the world hates his brother and is 
therefore an ἀνθρωποκτόνος, Christians, on the contrary, are by the example 
of Christ to lay down their life for their brethren. —év τούτῳ refers to the 
following ὅτι. ---- ἐγμώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην, “we have known the love, i.e., the character 
or the nature of the love” (Bengel, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, 
Sander); some commentators (Carpzov, Paulus, etc.) erroneously supply 
with τὴν ἀγάπην as a more particular definition, τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; others (Grotius, 
Spener, etc.), τοῦ Θεοῦ. In Christ’s self-devotion to death, love itself became 
concrete. Without adequate reason Ebrard supplies with ἐν τούτῳ an οὖσαν, 
so that ἐν τούτῳ forms the predicate of τὴν ἀγάπην; thus, “we have known love 
as consisting in this;” and ἐγνώκαμεν is only used as an accessory. — ὅτι ἐκεῖνος, 
ie., Christ; comp. ver. 7, chap. ii. 6. “He, says the apostle, without men- 
tioning him by name, for He is to every believer the well-known ” (Rickli). — 
The phrase, τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι, besides here and frequently in the Gospel of 
John, never appears elsewhere either in the N. T. or in the classics. Meyer 
on John x. 11 explains it by the “representation of the sacrificial death as a 
ransom paid: fo lay down, to pay; according to the classical usage of τιθέναι, 
according to which it is used of payment;” Hengstenberg (on the same 
passage) explains it by Isa. liii. 10; but it is unsuitable to supply the idea 
“ransom” or “an offering for sin,” for the τιθέναι τὴν ψυχῆν is not merely 
ascribed to Christ, but is also made the duty of Christians; besides, in that 
case ὑπέρ could not be wanting, as is the case in the Gospel of John x. 17, 18. 
The derivation of it from the Hebrew 423 732) DW (Ebrard) is equally 
unsuitable, because “here the Ἴ33 is essential” (Meyer). According to 
John xiii. 4, τίθημι may in this phrase also be interpreted = deponere (so 
most commentators), which is so much the more appropriate as in John x. 
iva πάλιν λάβω αὐτὴν is conjoined with τίθημε τὴν ψυχῆν μου, just as in chap. 
xili. 12 it runs, καὶ ἔλαβεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοὺ ; “comp. animam ponere in Propert. 
II 10, 43, and animam deponere in Corn. Nep., Vita Hannib. I. 3” (Briickner). 
Perhaps τίθημι might also be taken in the meaning of “to give up” (JI. 
xxiii. 704: θεῖναι εἰς μέσσον, τιθέναι εἰς τὸ κοινόν, in Pape see τίθημὺ. --- ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν 
is, “for our good,” 1.6., to save us from destruction; for the idea, comp. chap. 
li. 2. — καὶ queic, «.7.4., comp. chap. ii. 6. By this the climax is stated (John 
xv. 13); but even every self-denying sacrifice for our brethren belongs to the 
τιθέναι τὴν ψυχήν, to which we are bound by the example of Christ by virtue 
of our fellowship with Him. — The reading θεῖναι is just as conformable to 
the N. T. usus loquendi as the Ree. τιθέναι, for ὀφείλειν is sometimes connected 
with the pres. inf., and sometimes with the aor. inf. For the idea, comp. 
Rom. xvi. 4.1 


child of God ‘the eternal life,’ but ‘eternal 
life,” i.e., powers of the future world. Comp. 
against this, v. 13. 

1 The thought of this verse is, according to 
Ebrard, the surest proof that John in this 
section is not treating of the ‘‘ general and 
vague (!) idea of brotherly love,” but of ‘‘ the 
relation of the τέκνα Θεοῦ to those who are not 
τέκνα Ocov,”’ because the apostle cannot possi- 


bly ‘‘ limit the duty of loving sacrifice of life 
to the relationship of the regenerate to one 
another.” But (1) the idea of Christian 
brotherly love is very far from being a vague 
idea; (2) when Christians are exhorted so to 
love one another as to lay down their lives for 
one another, that is not a limitation of the 
commandment of love; (3) those who are not 
τέκνα Θεοῦ, and are therefore τέκνα τοῦ δια» 


568 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Ver. 17. As the apostle wants to bring out that love must show itself by 
action, he turns his attention to the most direct evidence of it, namely, com- 
passion towards the needy brother. “By the adversative connection (dé) 
with ver. 16, John marks the progress from the greater, which is justly | 
demanded, to the less, the non-performance of which seems, therefore, a 
grosser transgression of the rule just stated” (Diisterdieck). According to 
Ebrard, the dé is meant to express the opposition to the delusion “that love 
can only show itself in great actions and sacrifices ;” but there is no sugges- 
tion in the context of any thing like this. — τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου : “the life of 
the world,” i.e., that which serves to support the earthly, worldly life; comp. 
Luke viii. 43, xv. 12, xxi. 4.1: The expression forms here a significant con- 
trast to ζωὴ αἰώνιος (ver. 15). — θεῳρεῖν, stronger than ὁρᾶν, strictly “to be a 
spectator,” heuce = to lock at; “it expresses the active beholding " (Ebrard, 
similarly Myrberg: eculis immotis).— With ypeiav ἔχειν, comp. Mark ii. 25; 
Eph. iv. 25.— The expression, κλείειν τὰ σπλάγχνα, is found only here; ra 
σπλάγχνα as a translation of D°N appears both in the LXX. as well as often 
in the N. T. = καρδία; “to close the heart,” is as much as “to forbid to com- 
passion towards the needy brother entrance into one’s heart;” the additional 
ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ is used in pregnant sense = “turning away from him” (Liicke, 
De Wette, Diisterdieck). The first two clauses might have had (not, as 
Baumgarten-Crusius says, “must have had”) the form of subordinate 
clauses; but by the fact that the form of principal clauses is given to them, 
the statement gains in vividness. The conclusion, which according to the 
sense is negative, appears as a question with πῶς (comp. chap. iv. 20), where- 
by the negation is emphatically brought out. ἡ ἀγάπη τοὺ Θεοῦ is love to God, 
not the love of God to us (Calov).2 Here also μένειν has the meaning 
noticed on ver. 15 (Myrberg); incorrectly, Liicke: “as John is speaking of 
the probable absence of the previously-existing Christian life, it is put μένει 
and not ἐστί. The apostle does not want to say that the pitiless person 
loses again his love to God, but that it never is really in him at 411. Piti- 
lessness cannot be combined with love to God; the reason of this John states 
in chap. iv. 20. 

Ver. 18. True love proves itself by deed. The exhortation contained 
in this verse is, on the one hand, a deduction from the foregoing (especially 
from vv. 16 and 17); but, on the other hand, it forms the basis of the 
further development. — rexvia]. Impressive address before the exhortation. 
— μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ, i.e., “let us not so love that the proof of 
our love is the outward word or the tongue;” μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ is epexegetically 
added, in order to mark the externality of the love indicated by λόγῳ ἀγαπᾷν, 
inasmuch as it points out that by λόγος here only the outward word is meant; 


βόλου, John cannot possibly call ἀδελφοί with- 1 Comp. the Greek proverb: Bios βίου δεό- 
out any further statement; (4) the whole μενος οὐκ ἔστι Bios. 
section is an explication of ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, 2 Ebrard explains ἡ ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ: “the 


ver. 11; but by ἀλλήλους cannot be understood love which in its essential being took substan- 
the children of God and the children of the tial form after Christ and in Christ’s loving 
Devil in their relation to one another; comp. deed ’’(!). 

besides, iv. 2-11. 


CHAP. III. 19, 20. 569 


it is erroneous to regard γλῶσσα as a climax in so far as “one may love with 
words (without deeds), but in such a way that the words are nevertheless 
really and sincerely meant” (Ebrard), for John would not in the very least 
consider as truly and sincerely meant words of love which remain without 
corresponding deed. The article serves “to vivify the expression ” (Liicke) : 
the tongue as the particular member for expression of the word. It is 
unnecessary, nay, “contrary to the text” (Diisterdieck), with Beza, Lange, 
Sander, etc., to supply “ μόνον" with ἀγαπῶμεν, «.7.A.; for ἀγαπᾷν λόγῳ, κ.τ.1., 
in itself expresses the mere apparent love. — ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθεία]. Instead 
of the Ree. ἔργῳ, we must read ἐν ἔργῳ: According to De Wette, the two 
readings are synonymous; according to Liicke, ἐν ἔργῳ «. da. has more of 
“adverbial nature” than ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ; “in τῷ λόγῳ the apostle is con- 
sidering more the way in which love expresses itself, in ἐν ἔργῳ κι dda, he is 
considering more the form and fashion of it.” The preposition suggested 
itself to the apostle because the work, as being the realization of love, 
stands in an inner relationship to it, “is the element in which love moves” 
(Diisterdieck).1 λόγος and ἔργον are frequently in the N. T. connected with 
one another; so Luke xxiv. 19, Acts vii. 22, and many other passages; in 
order to bring out the insufficiency of λόγος in 1 Cor. iv. 19, 20, 1 Thess. i. 5, 
δύναμις is contrasted with it. By καὶ ἀληθείᾳ the apostle does not mean to 
add a second element of love, but to characterize the ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἔργῳ as the 
true love (so also Myrberg); a love which does not show itself ἐν ἔργῳ is 
only an apparent love.2 The relationship of (ἐν) ἀληθείᾳ to ἐν ἔργῳ is just 
the same as that of τῇ γλώσσῃ to Aoyw. The two words of each clause express 
together one idea, and these two ideas are contrasted with one another, so 
that it is not to be asked whether λόγῳ corresponds with ἔργῳ, and γλώσσῃ 
with ἀληθείᾳ, or γλώσσῃ with épyw, and λόγῳ with ἀληθείᾳ (against Diisterdieck 
and Braune). With the thought of this verse compare especially Jas. ii. 15, 
16; only here the thought is more comprehensive than there.® 

Vv. 19, 20. Blessed result of true love. —xai ἐν τούτῳ]. καί: simple 
copula. —év τούτῳ does not refer here, as in chap. ii. 3, 111. 16, 24, iv. 2, to 
the following thought, but to the foregoing ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἔργῳ x, dd. The future 
γνωσόμεθα, Which, according to the authorities, 15 to be read instead of 
γινώσκομεν (see the critical notes), “is used as in John vii. 17, vili. 31, 32, 
xiii. 35, where the subject is the possibility of an event which may with 
justice be expected” (Braune): it is the more natural here, as the form of 
thought is the cohortative; the sense is: If we love ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, we 
shall thereby know that, ete. — ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσμέν : Weakening and partly 
erroneous explanations of the phrase: ἐκ τῆς dA. εἶναι, are those of Socinus: 
vere talem esse ut quis se esse profitetur; of Grotius: congruere evangelio, of 


1 Braune: “It is to be observed that the 
first pair in the dative only states the means 
by which love operates; the preposition ἐν 
states the element in which it moves.” 

2 Comp. John iv. 24, where also “ καὶ ἀλη- 
θείᾳ ” is added to ἐν πνεύματι, not to bring out 
a second element of true worship (contrary to 
Meyer on this passage), but to describe the 


προσκυνεῖν ἐν πνεύματι as true worship in 
contrast to every apparent worship. 

8 Wolf quotes the corresponding statement 
of Picke, Avoth, chap. v. : ‘Omnis dilectio, quae 
dependet a verbo, verbo cessante, ipsa quoque 
cessat: at quae non dependet a verbo, nun- 
quam cessat.’’ — In Theognis 979 it is put thus: 
μὴ μον ἀνὴρ εἴη γλώσσῃ φίλος, ἀλλά και ἔργῳ. 


570 THE FiRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Semler: ἀληθεύειν ἐν ἀγάπῃ; of Baumgarten-Crusius: “to be as we ought to 
be;” of De Wette: “to belong to the truth; to live in it.” Bengel, on the 
other hand, rightly interprets the preposition ἐκ of the principium or ortus; 
so also Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.; comp. John xviii. 37, and Meyer 
on this passage. The truth is the source of life in love. It is indeed in its 
deepest nature God himself ; but ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ must not be put instead of ἐκ 
τῆς ἀληθείας, for the apostle here, with reference to the preceding ἀληθείᾳ, 
arrives at the idea of truth. Love ἐν ἀληθείᾳ is the evidence of being born 
ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας. ---καὶ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν]. This 
sentence is not governed by ὅτι, but it is independently connected with the 
preceding, either depending or not depending on ἐν τούτῳ; if the former is 
the case, “ we must take ἐν τούτῳ combined with πείσομεν somewhat differently 
than when connected with γινώσκομεν (γνωσόμεθα) ; with the latter it would be 
more therein, with the former more thereby” (Liicke; so also Braune); if 
the latter be the case, the thought: ἐν τούτῳ γνωσόμεθα ὅτι, x.7.2., serves as the 
presupposition of the following ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ, x.7.2., in this sense: if we truly 
love our brethren, we shall therein know, etc., and thus (in this consciousness 
of being of the truth) we shall assure our hearts, ete.1_ The idea that with 
καὶ ἔμπροσθεν an entirely new thought appears, which stands in no intimate 
connection with the preceding (Ebrard), is contradicted by the xai, which 
closely connects the two thoughts with one another. What, then, is the 
meaning of πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν ὃ Plainly πείσομεν expresses a truth 
which we (the subject contained in πείσομεν) impress upon our hearts, so 
that they are thereby determined to something, which presupposes at least 
a relative contrast between us and our hearts. The verb πείθειν means either 
to persuade a person to something, so that he thinks or acts as we wish, or to 
convince him of something so that he agrees with our opinion. Some ancient 
commentators have interpreted in accordance with the first signification: 
suadebimus corda nostra, ut studeant proficere in melius; the more particular 
definition which is added is here clearly quite arbitrary; it is not much 
better with the explanation of Fritzsche (Comment. III. de nonnullis 
Pauli ad Gal. ep. locis); animos nostros flectemus, nempe ad amorem vita 
Sactisque ostendendum, or even with the more recent one: anim. n. flectemus 
se. ut veram Christi doctrinam tueamur (see Erdmann, p. 129 ff.).2_ It is very 
common to explain πείθειν here by placare, to calm, to compose; this, it is 
true, is in so far inaccurate as πείθειν has not this meaning in itself, but 
certainly the verb is sometimes used in such a connection that the purpose 
of the persuasion is the calming of anger or of a similar passion ;* hence 


7 


1 Liicke: ‘ Even if it be unadvisable to con- have the assurance that we are of the truth) 
nect καὶ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ, x.7.A., directly with we shall, etc.” 
ἐν τούτῳ, 80 that it appears better, with Lach- 2 This interpretation is based on the erro- 


mann and the old commentators, to put a neous view that εἶναι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας is=veram 
comma after ἐσμέν, every one must at least doctrinam tenere; the former interpretation 
admit the connection in the direct succession _is contradicted by the fact that if we already 
of the sentences. But then it must also be know from our love to the brethren that we 
permitted to take the logical connection thus: are of the truth, we do not need for the first 
In this (vv. 16-18) do we know that we are of time to move our hearts to love. 

the truth. And thus (if we in living love 8 In favor of this we may appeal to the 


CHAP. III. 19, 20. 571 
the original meaning of the word passes into the above. This may be the 
case here also, for the following καταγινώσκῃ shows that the apostle regards 
our heart as affected with a passion directed against us; then the following 
ὅτι, ver. 20 (at least the second, for the first may also be the pronoun 6 7), 
is the causal particle = “because, since.” Taking this view, the sense is: 
In the consciousness that we are of the truth, we shall silence the accusation which 
our heart makes against us, because God is greater than our heart. —If, on 
the other hand, we"take πείθειν in the meaning of to convince, ὅτι (at least the 
second) is = “that;” and the sentence μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμών is 
the object belonging to πεΐῖσομεν ; so that the sense is: If our heart accuses 
us, we shall bring it to the conviction that God is greater than it. — The words 
ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ, 1.e., τοῦ Θεοῦ, do not point to the “future judgment” (Liicke, 
De Wette), but to the representation of God in the devotion of the soul, 
which is peculiar to the Christian. By putting them first, it is brought out 
that the πείσομεν only occurs in this representation of God (Diisterdieck, 
Ewald, Briickner, Braune).— Ver. 20. By far the most of the commenta- 
tors take the ὅτε with which this verse begins as the particle, either = 
“ because” or “that,” and explain the second ὅτε as epanalepsis of the first. 
The supposition of the epanalepsis of a particle has, considered in itself, 
nothing against it, although it very seldom appears in the N. T., but it is 
only suitable if ὅτι is the objective particle (comp. Eph. ii. 11, 12);1 from 
this it follows, that, if πείθομεν has the meaning “to calm,” the first ὅτι is not 
to be regarded as the particle. Sander, it is true, translates: “we can calm 
our heart, that—God is greater,” etc., but this has only sense if before 
“that” is supplied “ with this,” or “inasmuch as we reflect; such a sup- 
plement, however, is arbitrary. Several commentators (Hoogewen, Bengel, 
Morus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald) regard the first ὅτι as the pronoun, as 
also Lachmaun (in his large edition) reads 6 τὶ ἐάν. Diisterdieck erroneously 
asserts (as even Bertheau in the third edition of Liicke’s Commentary, p. 339, 
Ebrard, and now even Briickner and Braune, have acknowledged) that 
this form is never found in the N. T. It is true that in Col. iii. 23 it is 
probably not 6, τι ἐάν, but ὃ ἐάν that is to be read, although D***,E, J, K, 
have the former; but in Acts iii. 23 Tisch. reads ἥτις ἐάν (so also §), and in 
Col. iii. 17, according to the overwhelming authorities, it is not 6 τι ἄν, but 6 
τι ἐάν, that must be read (which 15 admitted by Lachm., Tisch., and Buttm.), 
and similarly in Gal. v. 10, not ὅστις ἄν, but ὅστις ἐάν (also accepted by Lachm., 


passages cited by Liicke, Matt. xxviii. 14; the context makes it necessary to assume the 


Joseph., Arch. vi. 5, 6 (Samuel), ὑπισχνεῖται 
και παρακαλέσειν τὸν Θεὸν συγγνῶναι περὶ τού- 
των αὐτοῖς, καὶ πείσειν, and the passage in 
Plutarch, where to ἀπολοίμην, εἰ μή σε τιμω- 
ρησαίμην, the reply runs: ἀπολοίμην, εἰ μή σε 
πείσαιηι, although πείθειν has not in them 
exactly the meaning of “to calm.” 

1 Liicke himself admits that the passages 
adduced by him in favor of the epanalepsis 
‘* have only value for those who take ὅτι both 
times not as causal particle, but as conjunc- 
tion, belonging to πείσομεν ;” but thinks that 


epanalepsis here even for the causal particle; 
similarly Braune, although without even 
showing the grammatical justification in any 
way. Besides, in this construction it is quite 
overlooked that if the intermediate clause ἐὰν 
καταγινώσκῃ, K.TA.. is connected with the 
preceding, the first ὅτι comes in disturbingly; 
and if it is connected with the following, the 
second ὅτι does so. As in accordance with 
the thought only the former connection can 
be the correct one, it is incomprehensible how 
John should have here interrupted it by ort. 


572 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

Tisch. 7, and Buttm.); moreover, there is nothing syntactically against 
reading here 6, tu ἐών, for καταγινώσκειν is frequently construed with the 
accusative of the thing. Ebrard, however, thinks that this view is “im- 
probable,” nay, “absolutely impossible:” ‘‘improbable,” because in ver. 22, — 
ὃ ἐάν is used (but in the first edition of this commentary it was shown that ὃ 
ἐάν is by no means the constant form with John, but that in the Gospel, ii. 
5, Xiv. 18, xv. 16, 6, τι ἄν also appears,! and that the sudden change of forms 
is found elsewhere also in the N. T., as in Matt. v. 19, first ὃς ἐάν and after- 
wards ὃς δ᾽ ἄν is used, and in Matt. xvi. 19, in some codd. (Lachm.), first 
ὃ ἄν, and then ὃ ἐάν is read); “absolutely impossible,” “on account of the 
mutual relationship of the two conditional clauses, ver. 20 and ver. 21.” 
Certainly the ἐάν in ver. 21 seems to form a sharp antithesis to the ἐάν in ver. 
20; but it must not be unnoticed, that, similar though the two clauses are to 
one another, they nevertheless have not the pure form of antithesis, inas- 
much as in ver. 21 there is no antithetical particle, in the clauses the suc- 
cession of the particular words is different, and the first conditional clause 
only forms an inserted intermediate clause.?_ In favor of the explanation: 
“before Him shall we calm our heart, whatever it may accuse us of, because,” etc. 
(or convince . . . that, etc.), is the fact that not only is the idea καταγινώσκῃ 
thereby more closely connected with πείσομεν, but also the certainly strange 
epanalepsis of the ὅτι is avoided.2— The verb καταγινώσκειν, according to 
Liicke, does not signify condemnation, but only accusation: in the inner 
life of the heart, however, the two are not distinctly separated from one 
another, but the accusation of conscience rather includes the condemnation ; 
the special κατάκρισις is certainly the work of God.4 The object of the 
καταγινώσκειν Of the heart is variously defined by the commentators; some 
understanding by it, with reference to the preceding thought, the “want of 
love,” others more generally the sinfulness which still adheres to believers 
even with all the consciousness of loving the brethren (chap. i. 8). The 
decision as to which is the correct interpretation depends on the explanation 


1 § has in chap. ii.5: ὃ av; xiv.13: 6 τι ἄν; 
Xv. 16: ὃ τι ἐάν. 


epanalepsis of ὅτι as objective particle may 
be doubted; for as the thought ἐάν καταγινώσκῃ 


2 If it was the apostle’s intention to contrast 
sharply two different cases, he could do this 
more definitely if he constructed the first 
period thus: ἐὰν καταγ. ἡμῶν ἡ καρδια, ἔμ- 
προσθεν αὐτοῦ πείσομεν τ. Key ὅτι μείζων, K.T.A., 
and the second: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ καταγ. ἡμῶν ἡ καρ- 
δία. From the fact that he did not do so, it 
may be concluded that such a sharp contrast 
was not in his purpose. 

8 That the supposition of an epanalepsis 
for the causal particle is improper, has been 
already noticed above; and for the passage 
before us it is further clear from the fact that 
if ov is the causal particle, the clause μείζων 
ἐστὶν, k.T.A., forms, according to the thought, 
the conclusion of ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ, as plainly 
appears in Liticke when he explains: ‘Then, 
if . . . our conscience accuses us, God is 
greater than our heart,” etc. — But even the 


does not form the presupposition for μείζων 
ἐστὶν, x.7.A., but for πείσομεν, it is unsuitable 
to place it in the objective clause dependent 
on πείσομεν, instead of connecting it with 
πείσομεν. 

4 Diisterdieck, with whom also Braune 
agrees, appropriately remarks that καταγι- 
νώσκειν occupies a middle place between 
κατηγορεῖν, along with which an ἀπολογεῖν 
further occurs, and κατακρίνειν, which in- 
cludes the judicial decree of punishment; 
comp. Deut. xxv. 1, 2. — Diisterdieck suitably 
quotes on this passage Sir. xiv. 2, comp. xix. 
5, and Test. Gad. 5; J. A. Fabricius, Cod. 
pseudep.V. T., p. 681. — καταγινώσκειν means, 
to pronounce against a person that he is 
guilty; κατακρίνειν, on the other hand, to 
pronounce the merited punishment on a per- 
son. 


CHAP. III. 19, 20. 573 


of the following sentence: ὅτε μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν καὶ 
γινώσκει wavta.— The old controversy is, whether God is called greater 
than our heart as forgiving or as judging: the former is the view of Thomas 
Angl., Luther, Bengel, Morus, Russmeyer, Spener, Noesselt, Steinhofer, 
Rickli, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myr- 
berg, Ewald, Briickner, Braune, etc.; the latter is the view of Calvin, Beza, 
Socinus, Grotius, a Lapide, Castalio, Hornejus, Estius, Calovius, Semler, 
Liicke, Neander, Gerlach, De Wette, Ebrard, etc. —If πείθειν is = “to calm,” 
then μείζων must refer to the forgiving love of God. Liicke, indeed, gives 
the following explanation: “after John has said that only if we are, in 
active brotherly love, conscious that we are of the truth, shall we calm our 
hearts in the judgment, he adds: for if the contrary is the case, if our con- 
science accuses us of the want of genuine love, then God is greater than 
our heart, and before His holiness and omniscience there is no calm for the 
accusing conscience.’’ But the assumption of such a declaratio e contrario, 
which is in no way hinted at, is only an artificial expedient for reconciling 
contraries. μείζων can only be referred to God as judging, if πείθειν has the 
meaning “to persuade.”+ As Ebrard regards this as the right view, and 
would begin “a perfectly independent new sentence” with καὶ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ, 
he states the meaning as follows: “In the sight of God we shall convince 
our hearts of this, that if (even) our heart (so prone to self-deception and 
self-excuse, and therefore small) accuses us (namely, of not practising love), 
God, the all-knowing, is greater than our heart, and we shall therefore so 
much the less be able to stand before Him.” ‘This interpretation is contra- 
dicted, in the first place, by the fact that it separates the second part of the 
nineteenth verse from the first, nay, even places it in antithesis to 10,1 where- 
as such an independence is not only not suggested as belonging to it, but is 
refuted by the connecting «ai; and, in the second place, by the fact that 
the thought is in itself inadmissible. According to the representation of the 
apostle, we and our heart are regarded as contrasted with one another, 
inasmuch as our heart brings a condemning accusation against us, which 
plainly refers to the fact that we by our sins have made ourselves liable to 
the judgment of God; it is not we therefore that hold out to our heart, but our 
heart that holds out to us, the judgment of God ; how, then, shall we after 
this bring our heart to the conviction that God will condemn us, nay, will 
condemn us even more than our heart does already? From this it follows 
that — whatever be the meaning of πείθειν --- μείζων cannot refer to the judicial 
activity of God. As God is called μείζων in comparison with our heart that 
condemns us, the comparison expresses an opposition. Erdmann: Notiont 
cordis condemnantis magnitudo Dei comparatur et opponitur, the heart, inas- 
much as it condemns us, is like the “ hostis, qui nos aggreditur, sed Deus μείζων 
ἢ. 6. fortior est, ut hostem illum devincere possit” (comp. iv. 4). As this 
greatness of God, which surpasses the heart, proves itself in this, that in 
those who are ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας it overcomes the accusations of the heart, those 


1 The conviction, namely, that we cannot stand before God, plainly forms an antithesis to the 
conviction that we are of the truth. 


574 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


commentators are right who assign to this verse a comforting tendency, and 
therefore refer μείζων to the forgiving love. No doubt, it is objected that 
the thought of God’s omniscience (γινώσκει πάντα) 1 is not able to comfort the 
man whom conscience accuses; but this can only hold good in reference to 
those who are not yet ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας, and not in reference to those of whom 
John is here speaking, namely, those who in their sincere love to the breth- 
ren have the evidence that they are ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας.2 If this is the right 
interpretation, then it is clear that καταγινώσκειν does not refer to the want 
of love, but to sin in general, from which even the τέκνον τοὺ Θεοῦ is not yet 
free (i. 8 ff); and this is also indicated by the apostle’s very form of 
expression, if πείσομεν is directly connected with καταγινώσκει, and if, accord- 
ingly, 6, τι ἐάν is to be read (see above), in which case ὅτι μείζων ἐστι, x.7.1., 
states the objective ground of the πείθειν : “because God is greater than our 
heart, we therefore (in the consciousness that we are of the truth) shall calm 
our hearts before God, however much our heart may accuse us.” This interpre- 
tation deserves the preference before that according to which πείσομεν is = 
“to convince,” and ὅτι μείζων, x.7.2., the object governed by it; because not 
only does the purpose of the verse thereby appear more clearly, but it is 
not easy to perceive how the conviction of the greatness of God which 
overcomes the heart should result from’ the consciousness ὅτι ἐκ τῆς, ἀληθείας 
ἐσμέν 8 ---- It is further to be observed that De Wette makes the jirst ὅτι as 
causal particle dependent on πείσομεν (= to calm), the second, on the other 
hand, on καταγινώσκῃ : “for, if our heart accuses us because God is greater 
than our heart, He also knows all things;” but this construction is opposed 
not only by the fact that the καί is more naturally taken as copula (Baum- 
garten-Crusius), but also by the fact that the thought that our heart condemns 
us because God is greater than our heart, is incorrect.4— Without adequate 


1 Several commentators find in the words 
καὶ γινώσκει πάντα the explanation of the idea 
μείζων : so Oecumenius, Augustine, Bede, So- 
cinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus, 
De Wette, etc.; even Ebrard says that God is 
called μείζων, ‘because He cannot be de. 
ceived,” but its position gives no justification 
for that; we can at the most say that the 
apostle by those words brings specially out 
one element which is included in μείζων. 

2 Luther rightly says: ‘* Though our con- 
science makes us despondent, and representa 
God to us as angry, yet God is greater than 
our heart. Conscience is a single drop, but 
the reconciled God is a sea full of comfort. 
. » « When conscience punishes and condemns 
a man, he becomes alarmed; but against this 
darkness of the heart it is said: God knows 
all things. Conscience is always in fear, and 
closes its eyes; but God is deeper and higher 
than thy heart, and more exactly searches the 
innermost parts of it.’’— Besser: ‘* Our heart 
Knows some things, and decides against us; 
God knows all things, and does not decide 
against us, but for us, because before His eyes 


the seed of truth, of which we have been 
born, is not concealed.” 

8 Ewald construes correctly, but in his ex- 
planation: ‘‘ If we earnestly seek in His sight 
whether we really love . . . we shall be able, 
even if we must sometimes accuse ourselves 
before God, nevertheless by the penitent (?) 
acknowledgment of the truth, to convince our 
conscience that we are men and God is God, 
that we may therefore sometimes fail and 
must be admonished by Him,’’ — he introduces 
references into the thought which are not 
contained in it. 

4 Briickner, it is true, defends De Wette’s 
interpretation, but he substantially perverts 
it; for whilst De Wette refers the whole verse 
to the accusation of God (therein agreeing 
with Liicke), Briickner takes the ὅτι γινώσκει 
πάντα in comforting sense; but it then be- 
comes still more untenable, for it is plainly 
unjustifiable to refer the omniscience of God 
in the subordinate clause to condemnation (for 
both explain μείζων by: ‘looking more deeply, 
examining all the recesses of the heart’’), but 
in the principal clause to forgiveness. 


CHAP. III. 21, 22. 575 


ground, Erdmann thinks that καρδία, in ver. 19, is used in a wider sense than 
in ver. 20 (“vertimus πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας : nobis ipsis persuadebimus’’), because 
there the plural, and here the singular, is used ; this change of the number 
has no influence on the meaning of the word, but the apostle speaks of the 
καρδία as the object of πείθειν, and as the subject of καταγινώσκειν, inasmuch 
as the heart is the seat or the union of the affections; the Greek commen- 
tators explain καρδία here as synonymous with συνείδησις. 

Ver. 21. In this verse the apostle states the case of our heart not accus- 
ing (or condemning) us. We can understand it thus, that what he pre- 
viously observed has happened, namely, that, in the consciousness that we 
are of the truth, we have induced our heart to refrain from its accusation 
against us. Then this thought does not stand to the preceding one in the 
relation of antithesis (as if in this verse a different case was contrasted with 
the case stated in ver. 20), but in that of continuation;! but it is more 
correct to suppose that the apostle is here speaking of a relationship which 
is different from that indicated in ver. 20, and that he is not regarding the 
question whether the non-condemnation has never taken place at all, or has 
been only brought about by persuasion. That two sentences may stand to 
one another in the relation of antithesis, even without the antithetical par- 
ticle, is proved by chap. i. 8 and 9. --- παῤῥησίαν ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν states 
what occurs when the case exists which is mentioned by ἐάν; it is erroneous 
to explain παῤῥησίαν ἔχομεν = πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν; the same expression in 
chap. ii. 28 and iv. 17, and construed with πρός, chap. v. 14; the same con- 
struction in Rom. vy. 1: εἰρήνην ἔχ. πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. As the calming of the heart, 
so also confidence toward God, which is the subject here, is. based on the 
fact that God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 

Ver. 22. By καί the following is closely connected with the preceding, 
inasmuch as it states what further happens when, in consequence of non- 
condemnation on the part of the heart, the παῤῥησία πρὸς τὸν Θεόν exists; it is 
not merely the consciousness of the hearing of our prayers, but it is this 
hearing itself. — ὃ ἐὰν αἰτῶμεν is to be taken quite generally, and must not be 
spoiled by arbitrary limitations; the necessary limitation lies, on the one 
hand, in the subject itself: the child of God asks for nothing which is con- 
trary to his Father’s will, comp. v. 14; and, on the other hand, in the 
παῤῥησία with which he prays; comp. Matt. xxi. 22;*the contrary in Jas. 
1. 6, 7. — λαμβάνομεν az’ αὐτοῦ, i.e., τοῦ Θεοῦ. The present is not used instead 
of the future (Grotius) ; the subject is here not something future, but what 
constantly occurs in the life of believers. Augustine suitably says: Charitas 
ipsa gemil, charitas ipsa orat, contra hance aures claudere non novit, qui illam dedit. 
ὅτι τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, x.7.2.]. ὅτι is connected with the immediately preceding 
λαμβάνομεν, and states the ground of God’s manifestation of love in the hear- 


1 The objection of Ebrard to this interpre. is retained in its own proper meaning. Con- 
tation, that ἐάν cannot serve the purpose of _ trary to Braune’s opinion, that with this inter- 
jutroducing a deduction from a premise which pretation not μή, but μηκέτι, would have to be 
is presupposed as already having actually oc- used, it is to be observed that it was not 
curred, is inappropriate; for ἐάν is not in this necessary to bring out the element which is 
view at all taken as ‘if, then, therefore,” but contained in μηκέτι. 


576 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

ing of prayer; this ground, which, however, is not to be regarded as the 
causa meritoria, is the childlike obedience of him who prays, wherein God 
recognizes him as His child; the idea of obedience is expressed in two mu- 
tually co-ordinate sentences (similar to the Hebrew parallelism) : τὰς ἐντολὰς 
αὐτοῦ and τὰ ἀρεστὰ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ are synonymous; 1 by ποιεῖν the obedience is 
specified as active; the second clause indicates that it consists, not in a 
slavish subjection to the commandment, but in a childlike fulfilment of that 
which is pleasing to God. In John viii. 29, ἀρεστόν is construed with the 
dative; only in Acts vi. 2, xii. 3 is the word besides found; similar is the 
expression ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ (1 Tim. v. 4). 

Ver. 23. With this verse, which —as the statement of the substance of 
God’s commandments — is most closely connected with the preceding, begins 
a new leading section, indeed the last in the Epistle, inasmuch as in iva 
πιστεύσωμεν τῷ ὀνόματι, K.T.2., a2 new element of the development of ideas 
appears, by which the sequel is not merely “ prepared for” (Ebrard), but is 
dominated. — καί is not explicative, but simply copulative.— airy refers 
to the following iva, which here also does not merely state the purpose 
(Braune), but the substance. — ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ]. The singular is used, because 
the manifold commandments in their inner nature form one unity: this is 
especially true of the two commandments of faith and love, here mentioned. 
From the fact that faith is described as an ἐντολῇ, it must not be inferred that 
it is not a work of God in man, but it certainly follows that neither can it be 
accomplished without the self-activity of man. — The phrase πιστεύειν τῷ ovd- 
ματι τοῦ υἱοῦ, x.7.2., only appears here; in chap. v. 13 the preposition εἰς is 
used instead of the dative; so also in Johni. 12, ii. 23, iii. 18, ete.; by the 
dative the ὄνομα of Christ is indicated as the object of devoted, believing 
trust;? “to believe on the name of Christ,” is, however, identical with “to 
believe on Christ,” inasmuch as in the name the nature of Him who is 
spoken of is expressed; comp. Meyer on John i. 12. Grotius, quite errone- 
ously: propter Christum sive Christo auctore Deo credere. — While faith is the 
fundamental condition of the Christian life, brotherly love is the active proof 
of the living character of the faith; the two things cannot be separated from 
one another; hence it follows here, καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους,8 which as the effect 
is distinguished from πιστεύειν as the cause; καὶ is therefore copulative and 
not epexegetical (as Frommann thinks, p. 591). — The subordinate clause, 
καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν, is best referred to ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, inasmuch as it is 


1 Meyer actually thinks that by ἀρεστά are 
meant the so-called consilia evangelica, by 
which ordinary Christians are not bound, but 
which are voluntarily undertaken by Christians 
who are specially holy! 

2 Weiss has been at pains to show that 
πιστεύειν in John does not include the element 
of trust; in this, however, he is wrong, be- 
cause even where the element of conviction 
prevails in the use of the word, this must not 
be identified with the theoretical belief, which 
is a mere act of the understasding, but it 
includes as an essential element the immediate! 


trust of the words or of the person to which 
the πιστεύειν refers; in the phrase: πιστεύειν 
τῳ ὀνόματι "I, Xp., the ethical meaning of the 
verb is so much the more to be recognized, as 
the denial of it necessitates also a weakening 
of the idea ὄνομα. 

8 Frommann (p. 200) wrongly concludes 
from this passage and iy. 7, 19, in which the 
obligation to love is expressed, that being 
born of God is conditioned by love, as the 
free act of man, “by which He keeps His 
independent personality and freedom towards 
God’’(:), nay, even is produced by it (p. 205). 


5TT 


not God (Estius, Bengel, Sander) but Christ that is to be regarded as the 
subject ; by καθώς (“in proportion as”) the quality of love is indicated: it 
must correspond to the commandment of Christ; Myrberg: Non modo aman- 
dum est, sed etiam vere et recte amandum. 

Ver. 24. After the apostle has mentioned the substance of the divine 
commandment, he describes the keeping of it as the condition of fellowship 
with God, and states the mark whereby the Christian knows that God is in 
him. —«ai is the simple copula, not = itaque; τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ is ἃ resump- 
tion of the ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ of ver. 23; the plural is used because the command- 
ment is described as containing two elements; αὐτοῦ = τοὺ Θεοῦ; not Χριστοῦ 
(Sander, Neander, Besser). — ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, κ.τ.λ.]1. The mention of fellow- 
ship with God, which consists in this, that we abide in God and God abides 
in us, is explained by the purpose of the Epistle. —xa? ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν]. 
ἐν τούτῳ is referred by Liicke and Ebrard to the preceding, namely to τηρεῖν 
τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ; but thus there results a superfluous thought, for with the 
connection which according to the apostle exists between the keeping of 
God’s commandments and God’s abiding in us, and which he has ex- 
pressed in the first half of the verse, it is plainly superfluous to say once 
more that we know the latter by the former; it is, besides, contradicted- by 
the following ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, which has induced Liicke to assume a combi- 
nation of two trains of thought and an ambiguity of ἐν τούτῳ,2 and Ebrard 
arbitrarily to supply with ἐκ τ᾿ πνεύματος the words “we know;” Diisterdieck, 
De Wette, Erdmann, Braune, etc., refer ἐν τούτῳ to ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, so that 
according to the apostle it is from the πνεῦμα which is given to us that we 
know that God is in us if we keep His commandments; comp. iv. 12, 13, 
where the same-connection of ideas occurs. The change of the prepositions 
ἐν and ἐκ is certainly strange, but does not render this interpretation “ impos- 
sible’* (Ebrard); for, on the one hand, the form, “ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν,᾽ is too 
familiar to the apostle not to have suggested itself to him here; and, on the 
other hand, by ἐκ the πνεῦμα is indicated as the source from which that γινώ- 
oxew flows; besides, the construction with ἐκ appears also in chap. iv. 6.— 
By πνεῦμα is here to be understood, just as by χρῖσμα in chap. ii. 20, “ the 
Holy Ghost,” who lives and works in the believer, but not, with Socinus, 
the disposition or the love produced by Him; or, with De Wette, “first of 
all, the true knowledge and doctrine of the person of Jesus.” With this 
verse the apostle makes the transition to the following section, in which, with 
reference to the false teachers, the distinction is made between the πνεῦμα 
τοῦ Θεοῦ and the πνεῦμα which is not ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


CHAP. III. 24. 


1 When Weiss defines the abiding or being 
of God in him who keeps His commandments, 


this act by means of His revelation in Christ, 
which must be accepted into knowledge. 


in this way, that God who is known, or the 
knowledge of God, is the determining principle 
of his spiritual life, this seems ‘‘to weaken 
the powerful realism of John’s conception;” 
yet Weiss guards himself against this when 
he says that he does not in any way diminish 
the divine causality in the act of regeneration, 
but only means thereby that God accomplishes 


2 The two thoughts which Liicke considers 
as combined here are: (1) that we in the keep- 
ing of God’s commandments know that we are 
in fellowship with Him, and (2) that the τηρεῖν 
τὰς ἐντολάς is nothing else than the expression 
and operation of the Divine Spirit.—It is 
plainly quite mistaken for Paulus to regard ἐκ 
Tov πνευματος as the subject belonging to μένει. 


578 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 2. Instead of the Rec. γινώσκετε, found in K, several min., vss., and 
Fathers have γινώσκεται : in δὲ Ἐ; γινώσκομεν (Ni: γενώσκετε); the Rec. is to be 
regarded as genuine. — The reading in B: ἐληλυθέναι, instead of the Rec. ἐληλυ- 
θότα, is a correction. — Ver. 3. Instead of the Rec. ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὲ 
ἐληλυθότα (K, etc., and G, though with the article τόν prefixed), A, B, etc., have 
the simple τὸν Ἰησοῦν (Lachm., Tisch.). This is probably the original reading 
(Brickner), and is confirmed by the preceding (contrary to Reiche, etc.). δὶ 
reads: ᾿Ιησοὺν κύριον ἐν a, ἐληλυθότα. --- According to Socrates, vii. chap. 32, ὃ Ave 
is found in old manuscripts instead of ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ; the same reading in Iren. 
iii. 18: gui soLvit Jesum Christum ; similarly the Vulg. (Lucif.: destruit) and 
in Fulg. — Tertullian also prefers this reading, though in connection with the 
common one; Adv. Marc., v. 16: negantes Christum in carne venisse... hic 
antichristus est ; the same connection in Tychonius and Augustine: qui solvit 
Jesum et negat in carne venisse. Semler’s view is a strange one, that ὃ λύει has 
arisen oculorum vitio; the reading is probably to be explained by the polemic 
against the Gnostics (Grotius, Liicke, De Wette), in favor of which is the Scho- 
lion in Matthaei, p. 225: προώδευσαν γὰρ αὐτοῦ (τοῦ ἀντιχριστοῦ) ai αἱρέσεις, Ov χαρακτε- 
ριστικὸν τὸ διὰ ψευδοπροφητῶν καὶ πνευμάτων λύειν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐν τῷ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν αὐτὸν 
ἐν σαρκ. ἐληλυθέναι. ---- The reading in δὲ: ὅτε (6 τι) ἀκηκόαμεν, instead of ὃ ἀκηκόατε, 
is ΒΙὨΡἜ]ΪΑΓ. --- Ver. 6. In his small edition Lachm., after A, Vulg., etc., reads 
ἐν τούτῳ instead of ἐκ τούτου; in his large edition he has accepted the latter 
reading. — Ver. 7. To ἀγαπῶν is wrongly added in A, τὸν Θεόν. --- Ver. 8. In- 
stead of ἔγνω, 8* has ἔγνωκεν in the original text of δὲ the whole sentence, ὁ μὴ 
dy... . Θεόν, is wanting. — Ver. 9. δὲ has ζῶμεν for ζήσωμεν. --- Ver. 10. To 7 
ἀγάπη is added in 8: τοῦ Θεοῦ, plainly a correction. For ἠγαπήσαμεν, B has 
ἠγαπήκαμεν. (Buttm.).—For ἀπέστειλεν, δὲ has ἀπέσταλκεν, --- Ver. 12. The order 
of words varies: the Rec. is τετελειωμένῃη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν, following G, Καὶ, 
ete. (Tisch.); A, etc., Vulg., etc., have ἐν ἡμῖν before τετελειωμένη (Lachm.); 
B and δὲ: ἐν ἡμῖν between τετελ. and ἐστίν (Buttm.).— Ver. 15. B reads ὃς ἐᾶν 
instead of ὃς dv, and Ἰησοῦς Χριστός instead of the simple ᾿Ιησοῦς. ---- Ver. 16. 
At the end of the verse B, G, K, δὰ, ete., several vss, δίς, read μένει (brack- 
eted by Lachm.); in A, etc., Vulg., several Fathers, μένει is wanting (Tisch.); 
according to the authorities it is to be regarded as genuine, being probably 
omitted to correspond with the end of the 15th verse (Reiche).— Ver. 17. καὶ 
has after μεθ’ ἡμῶν the further words ἐν ἡμῖν, and instead of ἐσμέν the future 
ἐσόμεθα. ---- Ver. 19. The Rec. ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν αὐτόν, ὅτι αὐτός is found in G, K, 
etc.; in A is found ἡμεῖς οὖν ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι ὁ Θεός (Lachm.): in B ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶ- 
μεν, ὅτι αὐτός (Tisch.); δὲ has jy. dy. τὸν Θεόν, ὅτι αὑτός, The αὐτός after ὅτι is 
sufficiently attested by the authorities; the αὐτόν after ἀγαπῶμεν, on the other 
hand, appears to be a later addition, added for explanation of the thought. 
Reiche, however, regards it as genuine; Liicke thinks that if ἀγαπῶμεν is with- 


CHAP. IV. 1. 579 


out an object, ὁ Θεός is necessary; this, however, according to John’s usus 
loquendi, is not the case.— Ver. 20. δὲ omits the ὅτε. In reference to the 
reading ἑόρακεν in Tisch. 7, see on chap. i. 1.— Instead of the Rec. (Tisch.) 
πῶς, 8, B, ete., Theb., etc., read οὐ (Lachm.). The interrogative is, however, 
more expressive than the negative. 


Vv. 1-6. Resumption of the warning against the false teachers; comp. 
chap. ii. 18 ff. The connecting link is formed by ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, chap. iii. 24; 
the object is to distinguish between the πνεῦμα which is of God and the 
πνεῦμα Which is not of God (vv. 2, 3), between the mv. τῆς ἀληθείας and the πν. 
τῆς πλάνης. The distinguishing mark is the confession; the former confesses, 
the latter denies, Jesus; the former is mightier than the latter; therefore the 
believers have overcome the ψευδοπροφήτας ; the words of the former spring 
ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, and are pleasing to the κόσμος; the words of the latter are 
accepted by him who is ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

Ver. 1. The apostle first exhorts them not to believe παντὶ πνεύματι. The 
idea πνεῦμα is in closest connection with ψευδοπροφῆται. The true prophets 
spoke, as we read in 2 Pet. i. 21, ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ; the source of 
the revelations which they proclaim (πρόφημι) is the πνεῦμα ἅγιων or πν. τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, by which is meant not an affection of their mind, but the power of 
God, distinct from their own personality, animating and determining them 
(δύναμις ὑψίστου, synonymous with πνεῦμα ἅγιον, Luke i. 35). This πνεῦμα 
speaks through the prophet, penetrating into his πνεῦμα and communicating 
to him the truth to be revealed; thus the πνεῦμα of the prophet himself be- 
comes a πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. As every prophet has his own πνεῦμα, there exists, 
though the πνεῦμα ἅγιον is a single being, a plurality of prophetic spirits. 
The same relationship holds good, on the other hand, in the case of the false 
prophets. These also are under the influence of a spirit, namely, of the 
πνεῦμα Which ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι, Of the πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης ; this similarly is a 
single being, but inasmuch as with its lie it penetrates the πνεύματα of the 
false prophets and makes them like itself, it is true of the πνεῦμα of every 
individual prophet that it is not of God, not a mveipa τῆς ἀληθείας, but a πνεῦμα 
τῆς πλάνης. AS John speaks here of a plurality of spirits (παντὶ πνεύματι, τὰ 
πνεῦματα), we are to understand by πνεῦμα in this passage not the higher 
spirit different from the human spirit, but this spirit itself, penetrated, 
however, and filled with the former! (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 32, and Meyer on 
this passage). This spirit, however, may be spoken of, not merely in plu- 
rality, but also in unity, that is, in collective sense ; for on each of the two 
sides all πνεύματα, being animated by one and the same spirit, — whether the 
divine or that which is against God, — are of one nature, and so form together 
one unity. It is incorrect to understand by πνεῦμα here, by metonymy, 


1 Diisterdieck considers the expression as pretation the plural would be used in a very 


describing ‘‘ the superhuman principle animat- _ figurative signification. Braune, correctly: 
ing the man who prophesies,” and explains the **The question is not about a dual, but about 
plural in this way, that ‘‘ those different prin- a plural; we must therefore understand the 


ciples reveal themselves differently in their spirits of men, to whom fhe Spirit bears 
different instruments;’’? but with this inter- witness.” 


δ80 ἷ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


“the prophets ” themselves (= λαλοῦντες ἐν πνεύματι, Liicke, De Wette, 
Calvin: pro eo, qui spiritus dono se praeditum esse jactat ad obeundum prophetae 
munus ; so also Erdmann, Myrberg, etc.), or “their inspiration ” (Socinus, 
Paulus), or even “the teaching of the prophet, his inspired word” (Lorinus, 
Cyril, Didymus, ete.). — ἀλλὰ δοκιμάζετε τὰ πνεύματα]! The appearance of the 
ψευδοπροφῆται, i.e., such teachers as, moved by the ungodly spirit, proclaimed 
instead of the truth the antichristian lie, under the pretext of speaking by 
divine inspiration, necessitated in the Christian Church a trial of the spirits 
(a διάκρισις of them, 1 Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 29); comp. 1 Thess. v. 20, 21; in 
order to know εἰ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, 1.6. (if ἐκ is to be retained in its exact 
meaning), if they originate in and proceed from God. — This trial is to be 
exercised by all (comp. Rom. xii. 2; Eph. v. 10; 1 Cor. x. 15, xi. 13), for 
“alloquitur (apostolus) non modo totum ecclesiae corpus, sed ctiam SINGULOS 
Jfideles”” (Calvin); against which Lorinus arbitrarily says: non omnium est 
probare ; unum oportet in ecclesia summum judicem quaestionum de fide mori- 
busque ; is est sine dubio Pontifex Maximus. — The necessity of the trial John 
establishes by the words ὅτι πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται, «7.2. These ψευδοπροφῆται 
are the same as in chap. ii. 18 are called ἀντίχριστοι ; comp. vv. 2,3. The 
name ψευδοπροφῆται indicates that the teachers proclaimed their doctrine, not 
as the result of human speculation, but as a revelation communicated to 
them by the πνεῦμα of God. The expression, ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, does 
not merely signify their public appearance (Socinus: ezistere et publice munus 
aliquod aggredi; Gyrotius: apparere populo), nor is “ἐξ οἰκῶν αὐτῶν to be 
mentally supplied” (Ebrard), but it is to be explained by the fact that the 
‘prophets, as such, were sent (comp. John xvii. 18), and therefore go out from 
Him who sends them. It is He, however, that sends them, who through 
His πνεῦμα makes them prophets. The idea of ἐξέρχεσθαι is accordingly 
different here from what it is in chap. ii. 19 (contrary to Lorinus, Spener, 
etc.); a going out of the false prophets from the Church of the Lord is not 
‘here alluded to. With εἰς τὸν κόσμον, compare John vi. 14, x. 36. 

Ver. 2. Statement of the token by which the πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ is to be 
recognized. — év τούτῳ refers to the following sentence: πᾶν πνεῦμα, x.7.2.— 
γινώσκετε is imperative, comp. πιστεύετε, δοκιμάζετε, Ver. 1. — πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμο- 
λογεὶ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα]. _It is arbitrary not only to 
change the participle ἐληλυθότα into the infinitive ἐληλυθέναι, but also to change 
ἐν into εἰς (so Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander); by ἐν σαρκὶ the flesh, i.e., 
the earthly human nature, is stated as the form of being in which Christ 
appeared. The form of the object is explained by the polemic against Do- 
cetism; it is to be translated either: “Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (Liicke, 
De Wette, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, etc.); or, “Jesus, as Christ come in the 
flesh ;” the last interpretation has this advantage, that it not only brings out 
more clearly the reference to the Cerinthian Docetism,! but it makes it more 


1 In the first interpretation the antithesis subject so described, which contains in it the 
to the Cerinthian Docetism lies not merely in idea Χριστός, is more particularly defined as 
the combination of “Incody Χριστόν as one haying come in the flesh. 
name (Ebrard), but also in this, that this 


CHAP. IV. 3. 581. 
easy to explain how the apostle in ver. 3 can designate the object simply by 
τὸν Ἰησοῦν. It might, however, be still more suitable to take Ἰησοῦν, . . éAn- 
λυθότα as one object = “ the Jesus Christ who came in the flesh,” so that in this 
expression the individual elements on which John here relied in opposition 
to Docetism have been gathered into one; so perhaps Braune, when he says: 
“the form is that of a substantive objective sentence,” and “in ἐν o, ἐλ, it is 
not a predicate, but an attributive clause, that is added.” That the apostle 
has in view not only the Cerinthian, but also the later Docetism, which 
attributed to the Saviour only a seeming body, cannot be proved from the 
form of expression used here. The commentators who deny the reference 
of the apostle to Docetism find themselves driven to artificial explanations ; 
thus Socinus, who expands the participle by quamvis, and Grotius, according 
to whom ἐν σαρκί refers to the status humilis in which Christ appeared, in con- 
trast to the regia pompa in which the Jews expected the Messiah.! To exact 
unbelievers there can here be no reference, as, according to chap. ii. 2, the 
false prophets had previously belonged to the Church itself.2 That John 
brings out as the token of the Spirit, that is, of God, just the confession of 
this particular truth, has its ground in the circumstances that have been 
mentioned; while it is also so very much the fundamental truth, that, as 
Liicke on chap. ii. 22 with justice says, “every ψεῦδος is contained in this, and 
amounts to this, the denial of that truth in any sense.” 8 

Ver. 3. In the reading, 6 μὴ ὁμολογεὶ τὸν ᾿Ιηοῦν, the article (which is not, 
with Liicke, to be deleted) must not be overlooked, for it indicates Jesus 
as the historical person who is Christ. ‘The false teachers did not confess 
Jesus when they ascribed the work of healing, not to Jesus, but to the Aeon 
Christ. The particle μὴ indicates the contradiction of the true confession, 
whilst ob would only express the simple negation. At the words καὶ τοῦτό 
ἐστι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, almost all commentators (even Briickner and 
Braune) supply with τό the word πνεῦμα; but Valla (with whom Zegerus 
agrees) interprets: et hic est antichristi spiritus, VEL POTIUS: et hoc est anti- 
christi t. 6. proprium antichristi, if this latter interpretation be correct, then 
τοῦτο refers to μὴ ὁμολογεῖν, and τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου is “the antichristian nature.” 
As it is not easy to see why John should have left out πνεῦμα, this interpreta- 


1 Socinus: ‘* Qui confitetur Jesum Christum 


i. 6. eum pro suo servatore ac domino et deni-. 


que vero Christo habet, guamvis is in carne 
venerit h. 6. homo fuerit, non modo mortalis, 
sed infinitis malis obnoxius.” Without any 
ground, Baumgarten-Crusius asserts: ‘‘ If any 
force were to be assigned to the predicate, 
‘come in the flesh,’ the infinitive would have 
been used.’ — Briickner thinks that if in 
ver. 3 the shorter reading (without the appo- 
sition) be the correct one, the reference to 
Docetism is here uncertain and unnecessary ; 
but the uncertain expression is plainly to be 
interpreted in accordance with the more cer- 
tain, and not, contrariwise, the latter in ac- 
cordance with the former, 


2 Comp. with this passage Polycarp, Zp. ad 
Philipp.: πᾶς yap ὃς av μὴ ὁμολογῇ ᾿Ιησοῦν 
Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, ἀντίχριστός ἐστι 
καὶ ὃς μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐκ 
τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστί. 

8. Augustine peculiarly turns this sentence 
against the Donatists, whom he reproaches 
with a denial of their love, on account of their 
separation from the Catholic Church, when 
he says that John speaks here of a denial 
of Christ not merely by word, but also by’ 
deed: ‘‘ Quisquis non habet charitatem negat 
Christum in carne venisse;” so Bede: * Ipse 
est Spiritus Dei, qui dicit Jesum Christum in 
carne venisse, qui dicit non lingua, sed factis, 
non sonando, sed amando.”’ 


582 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


tion is to be preferred to the usual one (so also Myrberg; Ewald similarly’ 
interprets: “the work of antichrist;” the same form of expression in Matt. 

xxi. 21; 1 Cor. x. 24; 2 Pet. ii. 22; Jas. iv. 14).1— ὃ ἀκηκύατε ὅτι ἔρχεται ;Ὡ com- 

pare chap. ii. 18. Stephanus, groundlessly, would read “év” instead of 6; the ᾿ 
relative does not refer to ἀντιχρίστου, but to τὸ τ. dvtiyp. — καὶ vav ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν 
ἤδη, i.e., in the false prophets; comp. ver. 1. John does not say here that 
antichrist, but only that the antichristian nature (or the spirit of antichrist), 
is already in the world; ἤδη is doubtless added, not merely to intensify the 
vir, but to point to the future time of the appearing of antichrist, which is 
already being prepared for. According to Ebrard, the last sentence depends 
on 6; this, however, is not likely, as 6 is the accusative; it is rather connected, 
as an independent sentence, with the preceding one. 

Ver. 4. After the apostle has characterized the twofold πνεῦμα, he directs 
the attention of his readers to the relationship in which they stand to the 
false prophets. — ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστε]. A contrast to those who are ἐκ τοῦ 
κόσμου; believers are of God, because the πνεῦμα which animates them is the 
πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. --- καὶ νενικῆκατε αὐτοὺς]. αὐτούς is not = antichristum et mundum 
(Erasmus), but τοὺς ψευδοπροφῆτας, in whom the antichristian nature dwells. 
— νενικῆκατε is to be retained as perfect; comp. chap. ii. 13. Calvin inaccu- 
rately interprets: in media pugna jam extra periculum sunt, quia fuluri sunt 
superiores. John could say to his readers, νενικήκατε, not only inasmuch as in 
them was mighty the strength of Him who had said, θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν 
κόσμον, and inasmuch as they in Him were sure of ultimate success (Ne- 
ander, Diisterdieck), but also inasmuch as their opponents with their seduc- 
tive arts must have been put to shame by their faithfulness, and must have 
been repulsed by them (Ebrard, Braune). The cause of this victory, however, 
did not and does not lie in the human power of believers, but in the fact ὅτι 
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμίν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. ----ὸ ἐν ὑμῖν, i.e., ὁ Θεός (according to Gro- 
tius, Erdmann, and others: ὁ Χριστός) ; as the believer is of God, God remains 
in him as the soul of his life; ὁ é τῷ κόσμῳ, i.€., ὁ διάβολος, “ whose children 
the antichrists are” (Liicke). Instead of the more particular ἐν αὐτοῖς, John 
uses the more general ἐν τῶ κόσμῳ, in order thereby to signify that they, 
although they were for a while in the Church, belong nevertheless to the 
κύσμος, Which the following words expressively bring out. 

Ver. 5. In chap. ii. 19, John had said of the false teachers, οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξ ἡμῶν; ; 
now he states from what source they spring; this is the κόσμος ; the anti- 
christian nature in them belonged to the world, quatenus Satanas est ejus prin- 
ceps (Calvin). The manifestation of life corresponds with the source of it; 
because they are of the world, διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλοῦσι; ἐκ τ. κόσμου 
λαλεῖν means: to speak that which the κόσμος supplies, to take the burden 
of their speech from the κόσμος, ex mundi vita ac sensu sermones suos promere 
(Bengel). This is not identical with ἐκ τὴς γῆς λαλεῖν (John iii. 31), for ἡ γῇ 
is not an ethical idea like ὁ κόσμος, ---- καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν ἀκούει]. The false 


1 Braune thinks that in these passages it ever, that the substantive idea τὸ τοῦ avtixp. 
was of importance to form a substantive is here also more significant than a mere 
conception, but that here the simple genitive genitive connected with ear, 
would have been sufficient; it is plain, how- 


CHAP. IV. 6. 583 


prophets had gone out from the Church into the world, to which they in- 
wardly belonged, and proclaimed to it a wisdom which originated in it; 
therefore the world heard them, i.e., gave to their words applause and assent, 
τῷ γὰρ ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον προστρέχει (Oecumenius) ; in contrast to which, believers 
were hated and persecuted by the world. 

Ver. 6. ἡμεῖς]. Antithesis of αὐτοί, ver. 5; either specially John and the 
other apostles (Storr, Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune, etc.) as the true 
teachers, or believers generally (Calvin, Spener, Liicke, De Wette, etc.) ; in 
favor of the former interpretation is the fact that believers are addressed 
in this section in the second person, together with the following ἀκούει ἡμῶν, 
as also the antithesis to ψευδοπροφῆται indicates teachers. — With ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἐσμεν we are to supply, according to ver. 5, the thought, διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
λαλοῦμεν ; the following words, ὁ γινώσκων τὸν Θεὸν ἀκούει ἡμὼν, contain the proof 
of the thought just expressed. — ὁ γιν. τὸν Θεόν forms the antithesis of ὁ κόσμος; 
and is synonymous with ὅς ἐστιν ἐκ τ. Θεοῦ, for it is only he who is a child of God 
that possesses the true knowledge of God. According to Liicke and others, 
the apostle means by this, those to whom belongs ,the “ general ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
εἰναι, i.e., the divine impress and instinct, which is the condition of childhood 
of God in Christ;’’ but the expression itself is opposed to this, for the knowl- 
edge of God is necessarily conditioned by faith in Christ. —In the second 
clause, ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν... οὐκ ἀκ. ἡμῶν, d¢ . . . Θεοῦ forms the antithesis to ὁ γινώ- 
σκων τ. Θεόν. This is the antithesis between “world” and “church of the 
children of God.” — In the concluding clause, ἐκ τούτου... τῆς πλάνης, it is to 
the immediately preceding thought that ἐκ τούτου refers. According to the 
usual view, with which Diisterdieck agrees, the sense of this passage is: He 
who hears the apostles shows thereby that the πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας is in him; he 
who, on the contrary, does not hear them, shows that the πν, τῆς πλάνης is in 
him; it is in his relation to the apostolic teaching that any one shows of what 
spirit he is the child1 But, according to the train of thought in this section, 
it is not the spirit of the hearers, but that of the teachers, that is the subject 
(so also Myrberg and Braune); the sense therefore is: That the πνεῦμα τῆς 
πλάνης prevails in the false prophets, may be known by this, that the world 
hears them; that in us, on the contrary, the πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας dwells, may 
be perceived by this, that those who know God, i.e., the children of God, hear 
us. The xv. τῆς ἀληθείας cannot be in him whom the world hears, nor can 
the xv. τῆς πλάνης be in him whom the children of God hear; Braune: “the 
πν. τῆς πλάνης is certainly in him whom the world hears, and the πν. τῆς ἀλη- 
θείας in him whom the children of God hear.” — τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ; comp. 
John xiy. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 13; a description of the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as 
He not only produces a knowledge of the truth, but “makes the truth His 
very nature” (Weiss).? τὸ mv, τῆς πλάνης, the spirit that emanates from the 


1 Luther: “If we hear God’s true messen- with that of John x. 3-5, where Christ appeals 


gers, that is a plain token of true religion; if, for a proof that He is the Good Shepherd, to 
however, we despise and mock them, thatisa the fact that the sheep know and hear his 
plain token of error.” voice, whilst they do not know the voice of 


2 The thought of this passage corresponds the stranger, and flee from it. 


δ84 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 
Devil, which seduces men to falsehood and error: comp. chap. i. 8; 1 Thess. 
1. 8:1 Cims iv.1. 

Vy. 7-21. After the apostle, induced by the appearance of the anti- 
christian nature, has characterized the spirit of truth and the spirit of error, 
he passes on directly to a detailed account of the elements of faith and love 
alluded to in chap. 111. 28. 

Vv. 7, 8. Exhortation to mutual love, and the establishing of this. — 
The address ἀγαπητοί emphatically introduces the command: ἀγαπῶμεν. --- The 
object ἀλλήλους shows that here also it is not human love in general, but 
Christian brotherly love, that is the subject. Mutual love is the holiest 
ealling of Christians who are τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, for ἣ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ éori,} 1.6., 
love proceeds from God. Calovius: originem habet a Deo. Unsatisfactory 
is the explanation of Grotius: Deo mazxime placet bonitas. ἡ ἀγάπη is used 
without a determining object, because it is love in its full extent that is 
meant. — καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται, x.7.A,]. Inference from what 
immediately precedes. If love is of God, then he who lives in love must 
also be born of God and know Him. The relation of ἀγαπᾷν and ἐκ τοὺ Θεοῦ 
γεγεννῆσθαι is not to be defined thus, that the former is the condition of the 
latter (De Wette), but thus, that the former is to be regarded as the criterion 
of the latter; to be born of God does not follow from love, but love follows 
from being born of God. The same relationship exists also between ἀγαπᾷν 
and γινώσκειν τὸν Θεόν ; 2 what sort of a knowledge of God is meant, however, 
is seen from the close connection of γινώσκει with ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ yeyévyntar. — 
Ver. 8. From the foregoing it follows further: ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν Θεόν: 
οὐκ ἔγνω, 1Le., “has not known.” The reason is: ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ὀγάπη ἐστίν. --- By 
this thought the preceding ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστί receives its full compre- 
hension. — ἀγάπη is without the article, because it is considered as a general 
definition of the nature of God; so ver. 16, comp. i. 5: ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστί. 
“ Love is not so much a quality which God has, as rather the all-embracing 
total of what He is” (Besser). Luther: Deus nihil est quam mera caritas ; 
Grotius, tamely: plenus est dilectione. 

Ver. 9. The manifestation of the love of God is the sending of His Son. 
-- ἐν τούτῳ refers to the following ὅτι, -- ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν]. 
ἐφανερώθη expresses the objective fact, not the subjective knowledge; the 
apostle does not mean that the love of God is known by us through the 
sending of His Son (comp. ver. 16), but that it has by that means come 


1 Neander: ‘ The apostle does not here lay brings with it the knowledge of God.” This 


down a commandment of love; he does not 
want to impress on believers new motives for 
love, but to convince them, that, as sure as they 
are God’s children, this fact must be mani- 


fested by mutual love.— As proof he adduces: 


that love is of God, and therefore every one 
who loves is born of God.” 

2 It was previously stated in this com- 
mentary: ‘‘John does not here say that love 
flows from the knowledge of God, but that 
love, because it is of divine nature, necessarily 


is incorrect, since γινώσκει τὸν Θεόν stands in 
the same relationship to ἀγαπῶν as ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
γεγέννηται does, even though it is in itself true 
also that only he who himself loves can really 
know God, who is love. For the correct 
explanation, see Liicke, Braune, Weiss. It 
has already been observed, however, that the 
last-named does not correctly state the connec- 
tion between being born of God and the 
knowledge of God, as he makes the latter 
the condition of the former. 


CHAP. IV. 9. 585 


forth from its concealment, has manifested itself in act. ἐν ἡμῖν is therefore 
neither “in” nor “among” us; neither must it be explained = εἰς jude; ἐν is 
here, as in ver. 16 and John ix. 3 = “to;” either connected with ἐφανερώθη 
or with ἡ ἀγάπη τ. 8.; hence, either “it has been manifested to us” (Diister- 
dieck, Briickner, Braune, etc.), or, “the love of God to us” (Ewald) has 
been manifested. With the first interpretation the sentence: ὅτε... εἰς 
τὸν κόσμον, makes a difficulty which has been overlooked by the commenta- 
tors;1 with regard to the second, the article ἡ is wanting before ἐν ἡμῖν; 
but a direct connection of an attributive clause with a substantive, without 
a connecting article, is very often found in the N. T., and is therefore not 
“ungrammatical” (as Diisterdieck thinks) ; the idea is here, then, the same 
as that which John in ver. 16 expresses by: ἢ ἀγάπη ἣν ἔχει ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν.3 
The difference between εἰς ἡμᾶς and ἐν ἡμῖν is this, that the former indicates 
only the tendency towards the goal, the latter the abiding at the goal. By 
ἡμῖν we are to understand not mankind in general, but believers in partic- 
ular, so also ver. 10 in the case, of ἡμεῖς, «.7.A.—In the following sentence: 
ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ... iva ζήσωμεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, the special emphasis rests on the last 
words, for the love which God has towards us is manifested in the fact that 
He sent His Son into the world for this purpose, that we might live through 
Hin, i.e., become partakers through Him of the life of blessedness. It is 
especially in its purpose that the sending of His Son is the manifestation of 
God’s love to us. The more particular description of the Son of God as 
ὁ μονογενῆς, Which is frequently found in the Gospel of John, appears only 
here in his Epistles. In Luke (vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38) and in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews (xi.°17), μονογενής denotes the only child of his parents. So 
the expression is used by John also to denote Christ as the only Son of God, 
“besides whom His Father has none.” ‘This predicate is suitable to Him, 
inasmuch as He is the λόγος who is ἐν ἀρχῇ, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, Θεός. Lorinus arbi- 
trarily explains μονογενῆς = ἀγαπητός; comp. Meyer on John i. 14. Calvin 
rightly remarks: “quod unigenitum appellat, ad auzesin valet.” How great 
the love of God, in that He sent His only begotten Son in order that we 
might live! Baumgarten-Crusius: ‘ μονογενής and Gjoouev are the principal 
words: the most glorious . . . for our salvation!” 


1 Even Ebrard has not perceived the diffi- 
culty. It lies in this, that by ὅτι, «.7.A., 
something is mentioned which happened for 
us, but not which happened ¢o us; differently 
in John ix. 8. Briickner thinks that the diffi- 
culty is removed by the fact that ‘in the pur- 
pose of the sending of Christ there also lies 
something which happened ¢o us; ” incorrectly, 
since even if the purpose of that is our life 
(wa ζήσομεν), yet it cannot be said that the 
love shown in the sending of Christ has mani- 
fested itself to us; the result is then that 
ἐφανερώθη is taken = ** has operated,” and that 
an emphasis is laid on ἐν ἡμῖν which it does 
not receive from the context. 

2 Liicke incorrectly observes that with this 


connection there is in ἐν ἡμῖν ‘something 
superfluous and unsuitable.” This is so far 
from being the case, that it is just in this that 
the apostle arrives at the consideration of the 
relationship between God and the believer. 
True, the love of God relates to the whole 
world, John iii. 16: ἠγάπησεν ὃ Θεὸς τὸν κός- 
μον, and to all, without exception, He has 
given, by sending His Son, the possibility of 
not being lost, but obtaining eternal life, but 
the loving purpose of God is accomplished 
only in them that believe; the unbelieving 
remain ἐν ὀργῇ Tov Θεοῦ ; hence the love of God 
to the world is more narrowly limited than His 
love to believers, who are ΗΒ τέκνα. 


586 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Ver. 10. ἐν τούτῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, i.e., “herein consists love,” love is in its 
nature of this kind. Oecumenius, inaccurately: ἐν τούτῳ, δείκνυται, ὅτι ἀγάπη 
ἐστὶν ὁ Θεός ; for ἐστί is not = δείκνυται ; nor is τοῦ Θεοῦ to be supplied with 
ἡ ἀγάπη (with, Liicke, De Wette, Briickner, etc.), but the expression means 
love in general, as in ver. 7 in the words: ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστί (Diisterdieck, 
Ebrard, Braune). — οὐχ ὅτι ἡμεὶς ἠγαπῆσαμεν τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι, κ.τ.1.1. Grotius 
and Lange arbitrarily render οὐχ ὅτι here = ὅτι oby. Several commentators 
take the first part as, according to its sense, a subordinate clause = ἡμῶν μὴ 
ἀγαπησάντων. Meyer: “Herein consists love, in that, although we had not 
previously loved God, He nevertheless loved us;”! this, however, is incor- 
rect; as John in ver. 7 has said that love is ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, so here also he would 
emphasize the fact that love has its origin not in man, but in God; it is 
originally in God, and not first called forth in Him by the love of men; the 
latter is rather first the outcome of the divine love;? the words οὐχ ὅτι 
therefore serve to specify love as something divine, not, however, as Diis- 
terdieck (who otherwise interprets correctly) thinks, to emphasize the fact 
that “the love of God to us is entirely undeserved;” this is a thought 
which is only to be derived from the statement of the apostle (Braune). — 
ἡμεῖς and αὐτός are emphatically contrasted with one another. — καὶ ἀπέστειλε 
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοὺ, x.7.4., States the actual proof of αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς; here also 
the special emphasis rests, not on ἀπέστειλε, but on ἱλασμὸν, «.7.A.. which 
corresponds to the ἕνα ζήσωμεν of ver. 9, inasmuch as it states the basis of 
the ζω; with ἱλασμόν, comp. chap. ii. 2. The aorists ἠγαπῆσαμεν, ἠγάπησε, 
ἀπέστειλεν, are to be retained as historical tenses (De Wette); by the perfect 
ἀπέσταλκεν, ver. 9, the sending of Christ is merely stated; whereas the aorist 
employed here narratively depicts the loving act of God in the sending of 
His Son (Liicke). 

Ver. 11. Conclusion from vv. 9 and 10, giving the motive for the exhor- 
tation in ver. 7. — The love of God (previously described: οὕτως) to us obliges 
us, believers, to love one another. The obligatory force lies not merely in 
the example given by God’s act of love, but also in this, that we by means 
of it have become the children of God, and as such love as He loves (Liicke). 
At the same time, however, the correspondence between ἡμᾶς and ἀλλήλους is 
to be observed; the Christian, namely, as a child of God, feels himself bound 
to love his brother because he knows that God loves him, and him whom God 
loves God’s child cannot hate. 

Ver. 12. The blessing of brotherly love is perfect fellowship with God. 
— Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται ; comp. ver. 20 and Gospel of John i. 18. In 
opposition to Rickli’s view, that these words were spoken in polemic refer- 
ence to the false teachers who pretended to see God, i.e., to know Him fully, 


1 Similarly a Lapide: ‘* Hic caritatem Dei 
ponderat et exaggerat ex eo, quod Deus nulla 
dilectione, nullo obsequio nostro provocatus, 
imo multis injuriis et sceleribus nostris offen- 
sus, prior dilexit nos.” 

2 With this interpretation it is not at all 
necessary, a8 Baumgarten-Crusius thinks, to 


give a different meaning to the ὅτι in each 
case: ‘not as if... but in the fact that;”’ 
but ὅτι has the same meaning both times, as 
the sense is: “this is not the nature of the 
love that we were the first to love, but that 
God was the first to love.” 


CHAP. IV. 12. 587 
Lucke rightly asserts that in that case the apostle would have more definitely 
expressed the polemic element; τεθέαται does not here at all denote spiritual 
seeing or knowledge (Hornejus, Neander, Sander, Erdmann), but seeing in 
the strict sense of the word (De Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune). John, how- 
ever, does not here emphasize this invisibility of God (in which He is infi- 
nitely exalted above man; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 16) in order to suggest that we 
can reciprocate the love of God, not directly, but only through love to our 
visible brethren (Lucke, Ebrard; similarly Hornejus, Lange, etc.), but in 
order thereby to emphasize still more the following: ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει, K.7.2., 
as the Scholiast in Matthiae indicates by paraphrasing, ὁ ἀόρατος Θεὺς καὶ ἀνέ- 
φικτος διὰ τῆς εἰς ἀλλήλους ἀγάπης ἐν ἡμῖν μένει; a Lapide correctly interprets: licet 
eum non videamus, tamen, si proximum diligamus, ipse invisibilis erit nobis prae- 
sentissimus (so also De Wette, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune). 
The πώποτε which is added shows that τεθέαται is regarded as the simple per- 
fect, and does not “include past and present” (Liicke); nevertheless with 
the thought, “no one has seen God at any time,” the further thought, “no 
one can see Him,” is tacitly combined. That the apostle had in view the 
passage Exod. xxxiii. 20 (Sander), is the more improbable, as both thought 
and expression are different. In reference to the appearances of God which 
the ©. T. in Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, and elsewhere, relates, Spener rightly 
remarks: “ All such was not the seeing of the Divine Being Himself, but of 
an assumed form in which His being manifested itself.” — ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλῆ- 
λους, ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμὶν μένει]. In these words the blessing of brotherly love is 
stated: With brotherly love fellowship with God is associated, because, in- 
deed, love is of God. The explanation of several commentators, “if we love 
one another, then it may thereby be known that God is in us,” weakens the 
thought of the apostle.1 God’s dwelling in us is certainly not meant to be 
represented here as a result or fruit of our love to one another (as From- 
mann, p. 109, interprets); and just as little is it the converse relation; but 
it is the inseparable co-dependence of the two elements, which mutually 
condition each other (so also Braune).— καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ τετελειωμένη ἐστὶν ἐν. 
ἡμῖν]. ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ is not here “the love which God has to us” (Calovius, 
Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Erdmann, etc.), for the idea τετελειωμένη ἐστιν 
does not agree with this (comp. ver. 18), but the love which the believer has; 
αὐτοῦ may, however, be either the objective genitive (so most commentators) 
or the subjective genitive; but in the latter case we must not interpret, with 
Socinus: ea dilectio, quam ipse Deus nobis praescripsit,” nor, as Calvin thinks 
probable: “caritas, quam Deus nobis inspirat,” but “ the love which ts inherent 
in God” (which is His nature and ἐξ αὐτοῦ) ; this, however, considered as 
dwelling in believers (ἐν ἡμίν) as the soul of their life (so also Briickner and 


1 Weiss insists on this interpretation, be- 
cause ‘itis meant to be shown how we have 
in brotherly love the visible evidence of an 
existence of God who is in Himself invisible ;” 
incorrectly, for (1) Christians need no visible 
proof of the existence of the invisible God, 
and, besides, it is not the existence of God, but 


God’s dwelling in us, ete, that is the subject 
here; (2) the conjunction ἐὰν shows that the 
subordinate clause states the condition under 
which what is.stated in the principal clause 


takes place; (3) thesupplementofa γινώσκομεν: — 


is purely arbitrary. 





588 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, 


Braune). This explanation, in which no object which would restrict the 
general idea of love has to be supplied (comp. vv. 7, 8, 16, 18), deserves 
the preference, because the specific love to God is first mentioned in ver. 19. 
Quite unjustifiably Ebrard asserts that 7 dy. αὐτοῦ denotes “ the mutual loving 
relationship between God and us; comp. ii. 5.” 

Ver. 13. The token of our fellowship with God (ἐν αὐτῷ μένομεν corre- 
sponds to the preceding ἡ ἁγάπη αὐτοῦ... ἐν ἡμῖν) is ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος 
αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμὶν ; comp. ili. 24. The expression, ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (instead 
of τὸ πνεῦμα), is explained by the fact that the πνεῦμα of God is the entire 
fulness of the life of God operating in believers, of which his share is given 
to each individual. The expression is not to be connected with the διαίρεσις 
τῶν χαρισμάτων, of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor. xii. 4,11. Compare Acts ii. 17; 
in reference to Christ it is said: οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσι τὸ πνεῦμα, Gospel of John 
iii. 84, Against the view that by πνεῦμα here “love” or a similar quality is 
to be understood, Spener says: “it is the Spirit Himself, and not His gifts 
only, that we receive.” --- ὅτε does not mean “if” (Baumgarten-Crusius), 
for John supposes that his readers are believers, and as such are certainly 
partakers of the Spirit. 

Vv. 14,15. That love brings with it fellowship with God, is caused by 
the fact that God is love, and love springs from God. But God’s love was 
made manifest by the sending of His Son, and this is testified by the apostles, 
who themselves have seep Him. The last thought which ver. 14 expresses 
serves as an introduction to the thought that follows in ver. 15, in which the 
believing confession (and therefore faith) is described as the condition of 
fellowship with God, and hence also of true love.—x«ai jueic]. By ἡμεῖς John 
means here himself and his fellow-apostles; comp. ver. 6.— τεθεάμεθα καὶ 
μαρτυροῦμεν, comp. chap.i. 1, 2. “τεθεάμεθα expresses the direct seeing (Gos- 
pel of John i. 14), not knowledge through the medium of others. The 
apostles saw that the Father sent the Son, inasmuch as they saw the Son 
Himself —and not after the flesh merely, but also as the μονογενὴς παρὰ πατρός. 
With τεθεάμεθα corresponds the closely-connected idea μαρτυροῦμεν, which 
presupposes one’s own direct experience; comp. Gospel of John i. 34. — The 
subject of this testimony is, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσταλκε τὸν υἱὸν σωτῆρα Tov κόσμου, Comp. 
vv. 9, 10; σωτῆρα τ. x, states the purpose of the sending, which does not refer 
to particular elect ones, but to the whole number of sinners (comp. chap. ii. 2 
and Gospel of John iii. 16). — Ver. 15. With ὁμολογήσῃ, comp. ver. 2. The 
subject of the confession is ὅτι ᾿[ησοὺς ἔστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ Θεοῦ ; this is precisely 
what the antichrists deny; comp. vv. 2 and 3.— Weiss erroneously inter- 
prets: “ Whosoever abides in this confession, in him it is seen that God is in 
him;” the words “in him it is seen” are a mere interpolation. 

Ver. 16. The beginning of this verse, καὶ ἡμεῖς, is indeed of the same im- 
port as the beginning of ver. 14; but ἡμεῖς here does not merely mean the 


1 Weiss incorrectly uses this passage as a here does not specify the personality of the 
proof that, whilst Jesws considered the Holy Spirit, yet it is in no way contradictory to it. 
Ghost as a personal being, John had not yet Besides, Weiss himself admits that the passage 
perfectly taken hold of this conception; for τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια (chap. ν. 6), points 
even if it be admitted that the expression used _ to the personality of the Spirit. 


CHAP. IV. 17. 589 
apostles (Myrberg), for otherwise ἐν ἡμῖν also would have to be referred to 
them, and a contrast, here inappropriate, would be drawn between the 
apostles and the readers, but it is used in its more general sense (as most 
commentators take it), which is also indicated by the connection of this 
verse with the preceding one. — With ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν; comp. John 
vi. 69. As the object of faith must have been previously made known to us, 
and hence made the subject of knowledge before we can take hold of it in 
faith, and as, on the other hand, it is only through faith that knowledge 
becomes the determining principle of our life, and these two elements mu- 
tually condition each other continually in the Christian life, knowledge, 
therefore, can be put before faith, as here, and faith can also be put before 
knowledge, as in John vi. 69.1 — τὴν ἀγάπην, ἣν ἔχει ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμὶν is not, with 
Wilke (Hermeneutik des N. T., 11. 64), to be interpreted: “the love which 
God has in us, i.e., as a love dwelling in us,” or, with Ebrard: “ God's love 
which He has kindled in us, by means of which, as by His own nature, He 
works in us,” for the verbs ἐγνώκαμεν and πεπιστεύκαμεν Show that the subject 
here is not something subjective, and therefore not our love (which only in 
so far as it is the outcome of the divine love is described as the love which 
God has in us), but something objective, and therefore the love of God, which 
has manifested itself in the sending of His Son for the propitiation for our 
sins. ἐν is used here just as in ver. 9. The following words, ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη 
ἐστὶ, «.7.2., which are closely connected with what immediately precedes, 
form the keystone of the foregoing, inasmuch as the particular ideas of the 
previous context are all embraced in them. — On ὁ Θεὸς ay. ἐστί, see ver. 8. 
- καὶ ὁ μένων, x.7.4.,18 the inference from the thought that God is love, in 
this way, namely, that all true love springs from Him. The idea of love 
here is not to be restricted to brotherly love (ver. 12, ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλῆλους); 
but (as also Diisterdieck, Braune, and Weiss remark) 215. to be understood 
quite generally. The idea of fellowship with God is here expressed just as 
in ver. 15. If John makes it at one time dependent on knowledge, and at 
another dependent on love, this is explained by the fact that to him both 
knowledge and love are the radiations of that faith by means of which the 
new birth operates. 

Ver. 17. After the apostle has said in ver. 16, that he that dwelleth in 
love (and therefore no one else) has fellowship with God, he now indicates 
wherein love shows itself as perfected; the thought of this verse is accord- 


1 Liicke: ‘* True faith is, according to John, 
intelligent and experienced; true knowledge 
is a believing knowledge. Both together form 
the complete Christian conviction, so that John, 
when he wants to express this very strongly, 
puts them both together, in which case it 18 
indifferent whether the one or the other comes 
first.” Comp. also Neander on this passage, 
and KG6stlin, Der Lehrbegr. des Ev., etc., pp. 
63, 215 ff. 

2 Weiss further erroneously observes that 
‘there also being in God is not to be made 


dependent on love, but love on being in God.” 

3 Ebrard introduces a reference foreign to 
the passage when he includes in μένειν ἐν ty 
ἀγάπῃ also the “ dwelling in the love of God to 
us, in faith in God’s love;’? Erdmann also 
incorrectly interprets: “ τῷ μένειν ἐν TH ἀγάπῃ 
eadem animi nostri ad caritatem Dei relatio 
denotatur, quae verbis ἐγνώκαμεν Kat πεπιστεύ- 
καμεν significatur.” Had the apostle meant 
this, he would have added to ἀγάπῃ; as a more 
particular definition, τοῦ Θεοῦ. Comp. Gospel 
of John xy, 10, 


590 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 
ingly connected with the preceding: ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. --- ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται 
ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν]. Several commentators, Luther, Calvin, Spener, Grotius, 
Hornejus, Calovius, Semler, Sander, Besser, Ewald, ete., understand by ἡ 
ἀγάπη “the love of God to us,” interpreting μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν = εἰς ἡμᾶς, and τετελείωται 
as referring to the perfect manifestation of the love of God. Grotius: hie 
est summus gradus delectionis Dei erga nos.1_ This interpretation, however, 
has the context against it, for in ver. 16: ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, as Well as in 
ver. 18: ὁ φύβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, by ἀγάπη is meant the love of man, the 
love that dwells in us; comp. also ver. 12. Here also, therefore, ἀγάπη must 
be understood of this love, with Estius, Socinus, Lange, Liicke, De Wette, 
Neander, Gerlach, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc. ; τετελεΐωται is used in the same 
sense as τετελειωμένη ἐστιν, ver. 12; comp. also ver. 18: 7 τελεία dyarn. —It is 
not the object of the love that is described by μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, for μετά is not = εἰς» 
but it means “in;”? it either belongs to the verb: “therein is love made 
perfect in us” (Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.; Erdmann, who 
explains μετά = ἐν), or to ἀγάπη : “the love which exists (prevails) in us is,” 
etc. With the first construction, the addition appears rather superfluous; 
besides, its position would then be more natural before ἡ ἀγάπη. The 
underlying idea is that the love which has come from God (for all the love 
is ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ) has made its abode with believers. Here, also, ἡ ἀγάπη is used 
without more particular definition, as in ver. 16, and is therefore not to be 
limited to a specific object (so also De Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune); it is 
therefore neither merely “love to the brethren” (Socinus, Liicke,’ etc.), nor 
merely “love to God” (Lange, Erdmann); Baumgarten-Crusius not incor- 
rectly explains the idea by “the sentiment of love;” only it must not be 
forgotten that true love is not merely sentiment, but action also; comp. chap. 
111. 18. —éy τούτῳ does not refer to the preceding, nor to dwelling in love, 
nor to fellowship with God, but to what follows; not, however, to ὅτι, as 
Beza,* Grotius, etc., assuming an attraction, think, but to iva παῤῥησίαν ἔχωμεν 


1 Sander: “That it is made perfect must 
only mean: this love of God which was mani- 
fested in the sending of His Son is manifested 
in its might and glory in this, that, as over- 
coming every thing, it brings us so far that 
we,” etc. —Calovius: ‘ Perficitur dilectio Dei 
in nobis, non ratione sui, sic enim absolute 
perfecta est, sed ratione nostri, non quoad 
existentiam, sed quoad experientiam.” 

2 Hence ἡ ay. μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν is neither =7 ay. 
(τοῦ Θεοῦ) εἰς ἡμᾶς, ΠΟΥ -- ἡ ἀγάπη (ἡμῶν) εἰς 
ἀλλήλους, a8 Liicke in his 1st ed. interprets 
(‘our love among ourselves, i.e., our mutual 
love”’); still less justifiable is the interpreta- 
tion of Rickli: ‘‘ the mutual love between God 
and the believer;’? for John never includes 
God and men in ἡμεῖς, When Ebrard, admit- 
ting this, nevertheless accepts the interpreta- 
tion of Rickli as far as the sense is concerned, 
explaining ‘the love of God with us” by “the 
love which exists between God and us,” this 


is purely arbitrary, for even though μετά is 
frequently used to denote a reciprocal action 
(see Winer, p. 336; VII. p. 352 ff.), yet this 
reference is here unsuitable, for it is not God 
and we, but /ove and we, that are placed to- 
gether. Moreover, to supply tov Θεοῦ with ἡ 
ἀγάπη is at the best only defensible if in μεθ᾽ 
ἡμῶν the subject to which the love refers is 
stated; but this is grammatically impossible. 
Tf, as Ebrard thinks, ἡ ἀγάπη denotes not love, 
but the love-velationship, then ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ᾽ 
ἡμῶν may only mean “ the loving-relationship 
that exists among us;”’ this idea, however, as 
Ebrard with justice says, does not suit the 
context. 

8 According to Bertheau’s note in the 3d ed. 
of Liicke’s Commentary (p. 364), Liicke has, 
however, in the edition of 1851, interpreted ἡ 
ἀγάπη: “brotherly love combined with love to 
God.” 


4 Beza’s interpretation runs: ‘‘ Charitas 


CHAP. IV. 17. 591 
ἐν τὴ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως. From ver. 18 it is clear that the chief aim of the 
apostle is to emphasize the fact that perfect love (ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη, ver. 18) is 
frée from fear, or that he who is perfect in love (τετελειωμένος ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ) 
experiences no fear, but has confident boldness (παῤῥησία). The thought of 
this verse is no other than this, that love has its perfection in the fact that it 
fills us with such παῤῥησία ; the clause beginning with iva therefore contains 
the leading thought, to which the following ὅτι is subordinated. It is true, 
the combination ἐν τούτῳ... ἵνα (instead of ὅτι, vv. 9, 10, and frequently) 
is strange, but it is quite John’s custom to use the particle of purpose, iva, 
not seldom as objective particle; the same combination is found in the 
Gospel of John xv. 8 (Meyer, indeed, differently on this passage); comp. 
chap. iii. 10, 23: airy . . . ἵνα (Gospel of John xvii. 3); by iva, παῤῥησίαν 
ἔχειν is indicated as the goal, not “ which God has in view in the perfecting 
of love in us” (Braune), but which the ἀγάπη in its perfection attains 
(Diisterdieck). With παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν, comp. chap. ii. 28.1— The ἡμέρα τῆς 
κρίσεως is the day ὅταν φανερωθὴ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, ii. 28. The preposition is 
not to be interpreted = εἰς, and ἔχωμεν is not to be taken as a future (Ewald: 
“that we shall have”); the difficulty that any thing future (behavior on the 
judgment-day) should be taken as the evidence of perfect love in the present 
(τετελείωται is not to be taken as future complete, but as perfect: “has been 
made perfect,” or “has become perfect” = “is perfected”’), is removed if 
we take it that in ἐν the παῤῥησία, which the believer will have at the 
judgment-day, and which he already has when he thinks of the judgment, 
is included, which could the more easily occur in John, as in his view the 
judgment-day did not lie in far-off distance, but was already conceived as 
begun (chap. ii. 18). The future παῤῥησία is to him in his love already 
present; similarly De Wette, Sander, Besser.2— The following words: ὅτι 
καθὼς . . . τούτῳ, Serve to establish the foregoing thought. By ἐκεῖνος we are 
not to understand, with Augustine, Bede, Estius, Lyranus, Castalio, etc., 
God, but, with most commentators, Christ, who is also suggested by the 
idea: ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως. ---- The comparison (καθώς) does not refer to εἶναι ἐν 


adimpletur in nobis per hoc quod qualis ille δοϊίαηεβα πᾷ βίδηᾷ firm.’’ It is to be observed 


est, tales et nos simus in hoc mundo, ut fidu- 
eiam habeamus in die judicii.” 

1 In Luther’s version, παῤῥησία is here, as 
elsewhere frequently, translated by Freudig- 
keit ; this is not a word derived from /freude 
(joy), but the old German word /freidikeit 
(from freidic, fraidig) = haughtiness, bold- 
ness, confidence (comp. Vilmar’s Pastoral- 
theol. Bidtter, 1861, vols. i. and ii. p. 110 ff.) ; 
in the older editions it is written sometimes 
Sreydickeyt (Wittenb. ed. 1525), sometimes 
Sreydigkeit (Ntirnberg ed. 1524), but in 1537 
(in a Strasburg ed.) freudigkeit. In what 
sense Luther understood the word, is clearly 
seen from a sermon on 1 John iy. 16-21 (see 
Plochman’s ed., xix. 383), in which he says: 
‘he means that faith should thus show iteelf, 
so that when the last day comes, you may have 


also, that such Hebrew and Greek words as 
contain the idea of joy, Luther never trans- 
lates by that word (‘boldness’), but by 
“ Ἰογσαβ,᾽ “ joy.” 

2 Braune, though he explains correctly the 
particular thought, denies that these two ele- 
ments are here to be regarded as combined; 
but without entering into the difficulty which 
lies in the expression. Ebrard states the 
meaning of the words incorrectly thus: ‘‘In 
the fact that the will of God, that we should 
have boldness in the day of judgment, is in- 
ternally revealed to us, and manifests itself as 
a power (of confidence) in us (even now), the 
loving relationship of God witb us is shown 
to be perfect.” How many elements foreign 
to the context are here introduced! 


592 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


\ 

τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, SO that the sense would be: “as Christ is in this world, so 
are we also in this world,” for (1) Christ is no longer in this world (comp. 
Gospel of John xvii. 11), and (2) in the fact that we are in this world lies 
no reason for παῤῥησία at the day of judgment. By καθὼς... καί it is rather 
the similarity of character that is brought out, as in ii. 16, where καθώς does 
not refer to the idea of περιπατεῖν in itself, but to the character of the walk, 
so that it is to be interpreted: “as the character of Christ is, so is our 
character also;” in the second clause οὕτως is to be supplied, as in 1 Cor. 
viii. 2; Eph. iv. 17,21. What sort of character is meant, must be inferred 
from the context; it is entirely arbitrary to find the similarity in the 
temptation (Rickli) or in the sufferings of Christ (Grotius), or in the fact 
that Christ was in the world but not of it (Sander), for there is no such 
reference in the context. But it is also inadmissible to regard as the more 
particular definition of καθώς the δικαιοσύνη (Diisterdieck), or the sonship of 
God (Liicke: “as Christ is the Son of God, so are we also children of God”), 
for neither do these ideas appear in the context. We are rather to go back 
to ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, and accordingly to refer καθώς to love (so Lorinus: 
“reddit nos charitas Christo similes et conformes imagini filii Dei:” Bengel, 
De Wette, Ewald, Myrberg, Braune, etc.),1 so that the sense is: “if we live 
in love, then we do not fear the judgment of Christ, because then we are 
like Him, and He therefore cannot condemn us.”? The present ἐστί is to 
be retained as a present, and not to be turned into the preterite (Oecume- 
nius: ὡς ἐκεῖνος ἣν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἄμωμος καὶ καθαρός). Love is the eternal nature 
of Christ, comp. iii. 7: καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν. In the concluding words: 
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, Which belong, not to ἐστι, but only to ἐσμεν, it is brought 
out that we are still in the earthly world (κόσμος οὗτος is not an ethical 
idea), whereas Christ has already ascended from it into heaven. 


1 The reference of καθώς to love is the only 
one demanded by the context, so that it is not 
suitable to regard love only as a single element 
in the likeness of believers to Christ which is 
here spoken of, as is the case with Liicke, for 
instance. Erdmann lays the chief emphasis 
not so much on love as on fellowship with 
God, which exists in love; but by καθὼς. .- 
ἐστι it is not arelationship, but a quality, that 
is indicated. 

2 Ebrard in his interpretation arrives at no 
definite result; as, on his supposition that the 
centre of the ¢ertii comparationis lies in the 
words ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, the present ἐστί is 
objectionable to him, he would prefer to con- 
jecture ““ οὕτως ᾽ instead of ἐστί; but “as a 
faithful attention to the requirements of Bibli- 
cal exegesis would scarcely permit such a con- 
jecture,” he thinks that nothing else remains 
but either to suppose that ἐστί (in the sense of 
an historical present) ‘‘is added as an indiffer- 
ent, colorless word,’ or to refer καθὼς ἐκ. 
ἐστιν to the fact that Christ even now ‘still 
exists in the wicked world ἐο a certuin extent, 


namely, in the Church, which is His body.” 
Ebrard regards the second conjecture as the 
more correct, and in accordance with it thus 
states the sense: ‘‘ We look forward to the 
judgment with boldness, for, as He (in His 
Church) is still persecuted by the wicked 
world (even at the present day), so are we 
also in this world (as lambs among wolves) ” 
(!). Ebrard groundlessly maintains, against 
the explanation given in the text, “that with 
it an ovTws could not be omitted, nay, that even 
this would not suffice, but that it would have 
to read: ὅτι οἷος ἐκεῖνός ἐστι, τοιοῦτοι Kai 
ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν, and that even then the passage re- 
mains obscure enough; ”’ and *‘ that with this 
acceptation, ἐν 7. x. 7. almost appears quite 
superfluous and foreign.” Against the state- 
ment that ‘‘our confidence in view of the 
judgment could not possibly be founded on 
our Jikeness to Christ, but only on the love of 
God as manifested in Christ,” it is a decisive 
answer that John in other passages as well 
makes the παῤῥησία dependent upon our char- 
acter: comp. li. 28, iii. 21. 


CHAP. IV. 18. 593 

Ver. 18 serves to establish the preceding thought, that love has its per- 
fection in παῤῥησία. --- φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ]. The thought is quite general 
in its character: “where love is, there is no fear” (Ebrard); φόβος is there- 
fore not specially the fear of God, and by ἀγάπη we are not to understand 
specially love to God, but at the same time this general thought is certainly 
expressed here in reference to the relationship to God. It is quite erroneous 
to explain ἀγάπη here, with Calvin, Calovius, Flacius, Spener, etc., as “the 
love of God to υ8: 1 but it is also incorrect, with Liicke and others, to 
understand by it, specially, brotherly love.2— The preposition é is not = 
with (ἃ Mons: ne se trouve avec la charité); Luther, correctly: “ Fear is not 
in love ;” i.e., it is not an element in love, it is something utterly foreign to 
it, which only exists outside it. By the following words, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη 
ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον, the preceding thought is confirmed and expanded: love 
not only has no fear in-it, but it does not even endure it; where it enters, 
there must fear completely vanish. Beza inadequately paraphrases the 
adjective τελεία by sincera, opposita simulationi; it is not love in its first 
beginnings, love which is still feeble, but love in its perfection, that com- 
pletely casts out fear. The reason why love does not suffer fear to be along 
with it is, ὅτε 6 Φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει. The word κόλασις (besides here, only 
in Matt. xxv. 46; comp. Wisd. xi. 14, xvi. 2, 24, xix. 4) has always the 
meaning of “punishment” (also LXX., Ezek. xiv. 3, 4, 7, xviii. 30, xliv. 32, 
as incorrect translation of 71W32); if we adhere to this meaning, that ex- 
pression can only mean: fear has punishment, in which case that which it has 
to expect is regarded as inherent in it, just as on the other hand it could be 
said: ἡ ἀγάπη ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (this being considered as future happiness, as 
in Matt. xxv. 46); this idea has nothing against it, for fear, as rooted 
in unbelief, is in itself deserving of punishment, and therein lies the reason 
(ὅτι) why perfect love casteth out fear. Several commentators, however, ex- 
plain κόλασις by “ pain,” thinking that “here causa is put pro effectu”’ (Ebrard), 
or, in more correspondence with the thought, by “pain of punishment” 
(Besser, Braune, so also previously in this commentary); similarly Liicke 
explains κόλασις = “consciousness of punishment.” The thought that then 
results is indeed right in itself, for “certainly this having of κόλασις does 
actually show itself in the consciousness or the pain of the expectation of 
punishment” (Briickner); but such a change in the meaning of the idea 
κόλασις cannot be grammatically justified. The following sentence, ὁ dé φοβού- 
μενος οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπη, Which is not connected with the subordinate 


1 Calovius interprets: ‘‘Charitas divina, 
quae apprehensa per fidem, omnem servilem 
timorem expellit,” whereby a reference for- 
eign to the context is plainly introduced. 

2 For justification of this interpretation 
Liicke refers to the words ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον, 
and remarks: ‘it cannot be said of the love 
of God in its perfection, that it casts out fear of 
. God, for it has not got any.” But John does 
not say that love casts out fear out of itself; 
the idea rather is, it drives fear out of the 


heart in which it dwells before it (love) ob- 
tains its entrance. If ἀγάπη and φόβος were 
meant to have different references, the apostle 
would certainly have indicated this. 

8 It is unnecessary to take the abstract (ὁ 
φόβος) for the concrete (ὁ φοβούμενος), as De 
Wette and Diisterdieck do; De Wette incor- 
rectly interprets ἔχει by ‘‘receives,” and 
Baumgarten-Crusius by ‘‘ keeps, tenet, thinks 
of ... punishment” (so that the sense is: 
“ Fear knows nothing of mercy, of love”). 


594 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


clause ὅτι ὁ φόβος, x.7.4., but with the preceding principal clause, does not 
contain a conclusion from this (dé is not = oiv), but (as Braune also thinks) 
expresses the same thought in negative form (hence the connection by dé) ; 
only with this difference, that what was there expressed in an objective way, 
here receives a subjective aspect. It needs no proof, that the apostle has in 
view in this verse no other fear than that of which Paul says, Rom. viii. 15, 
οὐκ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον, and therefore not the childlike 
awe of God arising from the consciousness of God’s glory, which forms an 
essential element of love to God.! The conjectures of Grotius, instead of 
κόλασιν - κόλουσιν (1.6., mutilationem; so that the sense is “ metus amorem mutilat 
atque infringit, aut prohibet, ne se exserat”’), and instead of φοβούμενος: κολουόμε- 
νος (“qui mutilatur aut impeditur in dilectione, is in ea perfectus non est”); and 
that of Lamb. Bos: instead of κόλασιν, κώλυσιν, are not merely useless, but 
even rob the thought of the apostle of its peculiar force. 

Ver. 19. ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν]. According to this reading (omit αὐτόν), ἀγαπᾷν 
is here to be taken in the same comprehensive way as ἀγάπη in ver. 16 (Diis- 
terdieck, Myrberg,? Ebrard), and must not be restricted to “brotherly love” 
(Liicke). — ἀγαπῶμεν, in analogy with ἀγαπῶμεν in ver. 7, and with ddgeiAouev, 
ver. 11, is taken by Hornejus, Grotius, Lorinus, Lange, Liicke, De Wette- 
Briickner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, ete., 
as imperative subjunctive; but it might be more correct to regard this verse, 
just as ver. 17, as an expression of the actual character of true Christians, 
with whom, in ver. 20, by ἐάν τις εἴπῃ the false Christian is contrasted, and 
therefore to take ἀγαπῶμεν, with Beza, Socinus, Spener, Bengel, Rickli, 
Neander, Ebrard, Hofmann (Schrifibew., II. 2, p. 338), Braune, ete., as in- 
dicative, in favor of which is also the prefixed ἡμεῖς. ---- The reason of ἡμεὶς 
ἀγαπῶμεν is stated in ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἤγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, in Which the chief emphasis 
rests on πρῶτος ; comp. vv. 9, 10. 

Ver. 20-chap. v. 1. Proof of the necessary co-existence of love to God 
and love to the brethren. The absence of the latter is evidence of the 
absence of the former; where love to God is, brotherly love also cannot be 
wanting. 

Ver. 20. This verse divides itself into two parts, the second part confirm- 
ing the thought of the first. — ἐάν τις εἴπη]. ‘The same form of thought as in 
chap. i. 6 ff. — ὅτε ἀγαπῶ τὸν Θεόν]. ὅτι is used, as frequently, at the commence- 
ment of the direct oration. — καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ μισῇ]. With μισῇ corresponds 
the subsequent ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν, comp. chap. 111. 14, 15. Spener: “not only with 
actual hatred towards him, but even not loving him in perfect truth.” 
To hate is the positive expression for “not to love” (so also Braune). — 


1 That the fear which the apostle means has 
its necessary place also in the development of 
the spiritual life, Augustine strikingly ex- 
presses thus: “ Timor quasi locum praeparat 
charitati. Si autem nullus timor, non est qua 
intret charitas. Timor Dei sic vulnerat quo- 
modo medici ferramentum. Timor medica- 
mentum, charitas sanitas. Timor servus est 
charitatis. Timor est custos et paedagogus 


legis, donec veniat charitas.’’— The different 
steps are thus stated by Bengel: ‘“ Varius 
hominum status: sine timore et amore; cum 
timore sine amore; cum timore et amore; sine 
timore cum amore.” 

2 Myrberg remarks: ‘‘ Totum genus amoris 
hic proponitur; sed ubi totum genus amoris * 
nuncupatur, ibi mens ante omnia fertur ad 
considerationem amoris erga Deum.” 


CHAP. IV. 21. 595 


ψεύστης ἐστίν ; see chap. i.6. The truth that he who hates (or, does not love) 
his brother, also does not love God, the apostle confirms by the contrast be- 
tween ὃν ἑώρακε and ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν, in which the visibility of the brother 
is contrasted with the invisibility of God. The perfect indicates the perma- 
nent state; comp. ver. 12, Gospel of John i. 18. Liicke: ἑωρακέναι = “to 
have before one’s eyes;” a Lapide: “ vidit et assidue videt.” Socinus incor- 
rectly lays a certain emphasis on the preterite when he says: quandoquidem 
satis est ad amorem per cognitionem alicujus erga illum excitandum, quod quis 
ipsum aliquando viderit ; nec necesse est, ut etiam nunc illum videat. ' The prem- 
ise for the conclusion of the apostle is, that the visible — as the object 
directly presented to the sight—is more easily loved than the invisible. 
Even the natural man turns with love to the visible,! whereas love to God, 
as the Unseen, requires an elevation of the heart of which only the saved 
are capable. Hence brotherly love is the easier, love to God is the more 
difficult. In him who rejects the former, the latter has certainly no place. 
The truth that love to God is the condition of Christian brotherly love, is 
not in contradiction with this; for that love, as the glorification of natural 
love, has its necessary basis in the natural inclination which we have to our 
visible brother, who is like us. It is therefore unnecessary to attach any 
importance to elements which the apostle here leaves quite untouched, as is 
the case with Calvin (with whom Sander, Ebrard, ete., agree) when he says: 
Apostolus hic pro confesso sumit, Deum se nobis in hominibus offerre, qui insculp- 
tam gerunt EJUS IMAGINEM ; Joannes nil aliud voluit, quam fallacem esse jactan- 
tiam, si quis Deum se amare dicat, et EJUS IMAGINEM, quae ante oculos est, negli- 

gat;? and with De Wette in his interpretation: “the brother is the visible | 
empiric object of love; whereas God, the ideal invisible object, can really be 
loved only in him.” By the interrogative πῶς δύναται ἀγαπᾷν (comp. chap. 
iii. 17), and by placing the object τὸν Θεόν first, the expression gains in 
vivacity and point. — πῶς δύναται must not be taken: “how can he attain to 
that ?” but “how can we suppose that he loves?” (Baumgarten-Crusius). 
Bengel: sermo modalis: impossibile est, ut talis sit amans Dei, in praesenti. 

Ver. 21. Alterum argumentum cur amare proximum (or, more correctly, 
fratrem) debeamus: quia Deus id praecepit (Grotius).—xai, not = and yet 
(Paulus); for this verse does not contain an antithesis, but an expansion, of 
the preceding thought. — ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν, x.7.4.]. Lange interprets ἐντολῇ 
here by “teaching;” and Grotius paraphrases ὁ ἀγαπὼν τὸν Θεὸν by qui a Deo 


2 Oecumenius: ἐφελκυστικὸν yap ὅρασις 
ἀγάπην. Hornejus: ‘*Sicut omnis cognitio 
nostra communiter a sensu incipit, ita amor 
quoque, unde facilius et prius amatur, quod 
facilius et promptius cognoscitur.” Similarly 
Luther, Calovius, etc. Compare also the 
statement of Gregory (Homil. XI.in Evang.) ; 
“ Oculi sunt in amore duces;”’ and Philo (Ad 
Decalog.): ἀμήχανον εὐσεβεῖσθαι τὸν ἀόρατον 
ὑπὸ τῶν εἰς τοὺς ἐμφανεῖς καὶ ἐγγὺς ἀσεβούντων. 

2 The objection of Ebrard, that ‘it is not 
easier to love a person who stands visibly be- 
fore me, and has, for instance, injured me, 


than a person whom I have not seen at all,” is 
overthrown by the fact that the apostle does 
not here make the slightest reference to the 
conduct of persons standing in visible opposi- 
tion to us, by whom the natural feeling of love 
towards our equals is destroyed and turned 
into hate. As the apostle is contrasting the 
elements of visibility and invisibility, it is so 
much the more arbitrary to introduce here a 
reference to the imago Dei, as this is not some- 
thing visible, but something invisible, —the 
object, not of sight, but of faith. 


596 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


pro amante ipsius haberi vult; both false and unnecessary; for although 
brotherly love is the natural fruit and activity of love to God, yet at the 
same time the practice of it is the habitual task which he who loves God 
has to perform, as one appointed him by God. It is doubtful whether we 
are to understand by αὐτοῦ God (Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Diister- 
dieck, ete.) or Christ; that in the latter case ἐκείνου must be read, is unfounded; 
becanse τὸν Θεόν follows, the second view seems to be the more correct; but 
as in the context there is no reference here at all to Christ, it might be safer 
to understand by αὐτοῦ God. — By iva referring back to ταύτην, it is here, as 
frequently after verbs of wishing and commanding, not so much the pur- 
pose as the purport of the commandment (the realization of which is cer- 
tainly the aim and object of the commandment) that is stated, which Braune 
here also incorrectly disputes. 


CHAP. V. 597 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 1. Lachm. has bracketed the καί before τὸν γεγεννημένον, because it is 
wanting in B, some min., Vulg., Hil., etc. Instead of τὸν γεγεννημένον, & reads 
τὸ yey. as it runs in ver. 4. — Ver. 2. Instead of τηρῶμεν, Rec. in A, G, K, δὲ, etc., 
Lachm. and Tisch. read ποιῶμεν, according to B, several min., Vulg., Syr., 
Thph., ete. The authorities, however, decide in favor of τηρῶμεν, even A; in 
which the following words: αὕτη yap . . . τηρῶμεν, are wanting, perhaps through 
a mistake. Still it remains likely that τηρῶμεν has been inserted as John’s usual 
expression (with ἐντολάς) instead of ποιῶμεν. ---- Ver. 5. Instead of the Ree. τίς 
ἐστιν (A, 6, al., pl., Vulg., etc., Lachm., Tisch.), is found in B, K, several min., 
etc.: τίς ἐστιν δέ; τις δὲ ἐστιν; in 8 the dé is inserted, perhaps for closer connec- 
tion of the clauses. — Ver. 6. Instead of αἵματος, πνεύματος is found in some 
min., etc.; in A, δὲ, some min., etc., is found the addition : καὶ πνεύματος ; others 
read πνεύματος καὶ αἵματος, and αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος is also found; πνεύματος 
is evidently a later addition. — The Rec. has before Χριστός the article ὁ: it is 
wanting in A, G, 8 (K: Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοὺς) and, according to the statement of Tisch. 
7, in B; according to Tisch. 2, it is found in B (namely, 6 silentio collatorum); 
Buttmann has retained it, as well as Lachmann and Tisch. 2; Tisch. 7 has, 
however, rejected it.—Instead of μόνον, B reads μόνῳ: a correction right 
according to the sense. ---καὶ τῷ αἵματι]. According to A, B, G, and many 
others, Syr., Copt. (with Lachm. and Tisch.), καὶ ἐν τῷ αἷμ. is probably to be 
substituted. Other variations, as πνεύματι instead of αἵματι, etc., do not call for 
observation; the reading ὅτι Χριστός instead of ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα need only be 
mentioned, which, because it is found in the Vulgate, is the basis of several old 
interpretations, although it is supported by scarcely any other authorities. — 
Ver. 7. Before τρεῖς, § has the article of; but in this it is alone. —The words 
that follow οἱ μαρτυροῦντες in the Rec.: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατῆρ, ὁ λόγος Kal 
τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεὶς ἕν εἰσι, (Ver. 8) Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν 
οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, are rejected by Griesb., Lachm., Tisch, etc., and 
are considered spurious by almost all modern commentators (except Sander, 
Besser, Mayer). — They are wanting in all the Greek Codices, except in 173** 
(of the 16th cent.), 34, and 162; in the two latter, however, which also belong 
only to the 16th cent., the words καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν, and the articles ὁ, ὁ, τό, 
are omitted. They are wanting, further, in almost all the versions. With 
regard to the Latin Codices, they are only found in these after the 8th cent.; 
the Codex Amiatinus (circa 541), Harleianus (of the 7th cent.), and others do 
not contain them; the Codex Demidovianus has transposed them, thus: quia 
tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et tres unum 
sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo, pater, verbum, et spiritus. 
— Of the Greek Fathers not a single one mentions them, although reference to 
them would have been very convenient in the Arian controversies; just as little 


598 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

is there any reference.to them in most of the older Latin Fathers, as Hilary, 
Lucifer, Ambrose, Faustinus, Jerome, Augustine, etc. An allusion to them has 
incorrectly been believed to exist in Tertullian in the passages: c. Praz., 25, 
and De Pudicit., 21; on the other hand, Cyprian (De Unitate Ecclesiae) seems to 
refer to them in the words: Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus; et 
iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: Et tres unum sunt. 
The passage in Phoebadius (4th cent.), Contra Arianos, c. 45, refers rather to 
Tertullian than to John;! and in Eucherius (5th cent.), Lib. Formularum, c. 11, 
they are only found in interpolated handwriting. They are first certainly quoted 
by Vigilius (towards the end of the 5th cent.) in the books written under the 
name of Idacius, Contra Varimadum, by Fulgentius, Cassiodorus (of the 6th 
cent.), and in many later ones since the 9th cent. — The peculiar quotation in 
Cyprian finds its explanation in the symbolical interpretation of the words τὸ 
πνεῦμα, τὸ ὕδωρ, and τὸ aiva of the Trinity, which is also found in the Schol. in 
Matthaei: of τρεῖς δὲ εἶπεν ἀρσενικῶς, ὅτι σύμβολα ταῦτα τῆς τριάδος: and in the 
Schol.: τουτέστι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ (and on ἕν εἰσιν: του- 
τέστι μία θεότης, εἷς Θεός), and which Facundus (6th cent.) has rightly recognized 
when he says, Pro Defens. Trium Capit., 1. i. α. 3: tres sunt qui testimonium 
dant (in terra ?): Spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt... quod 
Joannis apostoli testimonium Cyprianus ... de Patre, Filio et Spiritu 8, 
intelligit.2 — As at first the three persons of the Trinity were substituted for the 
former words, as was the case with Cyprian, the idea arose afterwards that they 
were named by the apostle in addition to them, and some Fathers then quoted 
the passage as it had taken shape in accordance with this idea. — The weight of 
the evidence against the genuineness of the disputed words is so strong, that it 
is opposed to the fundamental principles of a sound and unprejudiced criticism 
to regard them as genuine. — In the 16th cent. the words are found in most of 
the Latin translations, as well as in some of the German translations which 
were made in accordance with the Vulgate. With regard to the editions of the 
Greek text, the Complutensian (1504-1514), following the Vulgate, accepted 
them; on the other hand, Erasmus in his earliest editions rejected them, as 
well as Aldus Manutius in the Venetian edition (1518); in his translation of 
1521, and in the 3d edition of 1522, Erasmus, however, accepted them, adducing 
Cod. 34; Stephanus and Beza did the same; ‘‘ the Rec. sanctioned the claim of 
this reading’? (Braune), Luther never admitted them into his translation.® 
They are first found in the translations which appeared in Switzerland without 
Luther’s name; thus in the Ziirich edition of Froschover, 1529; the edition of 


1 The passages in Tertullian run thus: the 
Jrst: ‘Ceterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut 
ipse de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio et 
Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes al- 
terum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non 
unus, quomodo dictum est. Ego et Pater unum 
sumus, ad substafitiae unitatem, non ad nu- 
meri singularitatem;’’ the second: “ Et eccle- 
sia proprie et principaliter ipse est Spiritus, in 
quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, Pater et 
Filius et Spiritus Sanctus.’ The passage in 
Phoebadius: “ Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut 
alius a Patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu, ut 
in Filio secunda Persona: unus tamen Deus 
omnia, quia tres unum sunt.” 


2 Ebrard, indeed, also holds these words to 
be spurious, but thinks it probable that they 
existed in the MSS. which were available to 
Cyprian; this, however, is the less to be in- 
ferred from the fact that Vigilius had the 
passage in his N. T., since he quotes it in a 
corrupt sense. 

8 It is strange that the words are found 
explained in Luther’s second commentary on 
the Epistle (Walch) without the slightest 
reference to their spuriousness, whilst in 
Luther’s first commentary they are distinctly 
specified as spurious. This is no doubt ex- 
plained by the fact that he based his second 
edition on the later text of Erasmus. 


CHAP. V. 599 


1531 also has them, but with the omission of “in earth,’? and in small print; 
in that of 1533 they are printed in ordinary letters, whilst they are bracketed 
in later editions of 1540, 1545, 1549.1 The Basel edition of Bryllinger, 1552, has 
them without brackets; the Ziirich edition of Gessner, 1555, on the other hand, 
has them bracketed. — With regard to the editions published in Frankfort-on- 
the-Main, these words, according to the usual statement, are first found in 
the edition of 1593; this, however, is incorrect, for they previously occur in the 
quarto edition of 1582, though they are wanting in the octavo of Feyerabendt, 
1582.2. Among the editions printed in Wittenberg, the quarto edition of Zach. 
Lehmann, 1596, is probably the first that admitted the words; but again they 
are wanting in many later editions; the last which does not contain them is the 
quarto of 1620, which was published by Zach. Schiirer at Joh. Richter’s. — In 
the 17th cent. their genuineness was defended — certainly on insufficient and 
false grounds. After Richard Simon had declared himself against them, they 
were opposed in the 18th cent., especially by Thomas Emlyn (1715), Clarke 
(1738), Wetstein, Michaelis, Semler, Hezel, Griesbach, Matthaei. Bengel, on 
the contrary, defended them, but with the arbitrary assumption that the text 
originally ran: ‘‘ ὅτι τρεὶς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν TH γῇ" τὸ πνεῦμα, K.T.A., εἰς τὸ ἐν 
Ver. 8. καὶ τρεὶς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατῆρ, 6 λόγος καὶ τὸ 
ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν." Compare -especially Bengel, Apparat. 
Criticus ; Griesbach, Diatribe in loc. 1 Johann. v. 7, 8, as appendix of the 2d 
part of his edition; Semler in his Hist. τι. krit. Sammlungen tiber die Sog. 
Beweisstellen in ἃ. Dogm. St., I.; Rickli in his notes on this passage; Knittel, 
Neue Kritiken iiber 1 Joh. v. 7, 8. — Ver. 9. Instead of ἦν, according to 6, K, 
etc., Thph., Oecum., A, B, δὲ, etc., Vulg., etc., Cyr., read ὅτι, which is recom- 
mended by Griesbach and accepted by Lachm. and Tisch.: ἣν seems to have 
arisen from ver. 10; Reiche, however, holds ἦν to be the original. — Ver. 10. 
ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν]. Rec., according to B, G, Κα, δὲ, very many min., and vss., 
Thph., ete. (Tisch.); Lachm. (following A, Vulg.) adds τοῦ Θεοῦ, which, how- 
ever, seems to be an explanatory gloss. — Instead of ἑαυτῷ, Tisch. reads αὐτῷ, 
following A, G, K; only a clerical variation. τῷ Θεῷ, Rec., after B, G, K, 8, 
Syr., etc., Thph. (Tisch.). Against this A and the Vulg. have τῷ υἱῷ (Lachm.). 
This reading has arisen from the idea that this negative sentence must exactly 
correspond to the preceding: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ---- Ver. 13. The Rec. 
runs: ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς TO ὄνομα TOV υἱοὺ τοῦ Θεοῦ, iva εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν 
ἔχετε αἰώνιον καὶ iva πιστεύητε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοὺ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. In A,B,¥, etc., 
Vulg., Copt., Theb., etc., Cassiod., Bede, the addition τοὶς πιστεύουσιν... τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
is wanting after ὑμῖν; instead of the concluding καὶ iva, «.7.A., the reading in A, 
etc., almost all the vss., Cassiod., Bede, is: of πιστεύοντες εἷς τὸ Ov., 4.7.4.5; in B, 


εἰσιν. 


1 According to Rickli, these brackets were 
first omitted in 1597; Ebrard, on the other 
hand, says that they were already omitted in 
the edition of 1561 which was in his posses- 
sion. 

2 For these and the following notices I 
have to thank my friend Dr. Klose of Ham- 
burg, who has personally examined these 
editions in the Hamburg Library. According 
to Panzer (Hist. de Bibeliibers., p. 492 ff.) and 
MGnckeburg (Beitr. z. Feststellung, etc., p. 
152), the words are said to occur as early as in 
the Frankfurt edition of 1574, edited by Reffeler 


(published by John Feyerabendt); but this 
statement is incorrect. According to a written 
communication from Professor Dr. Keil, who 
has compared the. edition in the Leipzig 
University Library, the passage referred to 
runs: ‘* And it is the Spirit that bears witness 
that the Spirit is truth. For there are three 
that bear record on earth, the Spirit and the 
water and the blood, and these three are one. 
If we receive the witness of men,” etc. The 
folio edition of Weyg. Hanen, 1574, also does 
not contain the words. 


600 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


however, τοὶς πιστεύουσιν ; so also N*; in δὲ 1, however, οἱ teorebovrec. —Griesb., 
Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., have accepted the reading as it is in A, Buttmann as it 
isin B. Even if the common reading is to be justified according to the sense 
(De Wette, Sander, Reiche), yet its correctness does not therefore follow, as it 
has too little support from external authorities, and as iva πιστεύητε seems to 
owe its origin to the passage, Gospel of John xx. 31. The reading of B might, 
however, be preferable to the reading of A, since the former is not only the 
more difficult, but by it the origin of the Rec. can be more easily explained; so 
also Briickner; Braune prefers the reading of A, ‘as difficilior,’”’ but the addi- 
tion is more easily connected with ἔχετε than with the preceding ὑμὲν, ---- ΤΆ is 
doubtful whether αἰώνιον had its original position before or after ἔχετε; the 
former is attested by G, K, δὲ, several min., Thph., Oec.; the latter by A, B, 
etc., Vulg., etc. (Lachm., Tisch.).— Ver. 14. Instead of ὅτι ἐάν τι, Lachm., 
following A, reads: 6, te ἄν, which, however, has too little support. — Ver. 15. 
Lachmann’s reading, καὶ ἄν, instead of καὶ ἐάν, has too little evidence in B. A 
omits entirely the words ka? . . . ἡμῶν; so also N*; δὲ; reads καὶ ἐὰν ἴδομεν, x.7.A. 
—06 ἄν]. Rec., according to A, K, ete., Oec. (Lachm.); instead of which B, G, 
δὲ, and many others, Thph., have ὃ ἐὰν (Tisch.). The reading in ~*, ὅτι ἐὰν 
ἔχωμεν, is merely a mistake. — Instead of παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ (A, G, K, and several others), 
B, 8, read ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ (Lachm., Tisch.).— Ver. 16. Instead of ἴδῃ, Rec., according 
to A, B, 6, K, κα, ete., Clem., Thph., Oec., Lachmann, has accepted the reading 
εἰδῇ, presented only by the Vulg. and Latin Fathers. ΣῈ has αἰτήσεις καὶ δώσεις 
instead of the third person.— Ver. 18. Instead of ἀλλ᾽, Tisch. and Buttm., 
following B, read ἀλλά. The reading αὐτὸν in A*, B, instead of ἑαυτόν, is only a 
clerical variation of the word. — Ver. 20. καὶ οἴδαμεν). Rec., according to A, 
several min., etc. (Lachm., Buttm.); K, 8, ete. (according to Tisch., also B; 
contrary to which Buttm. states that καὶ oid. is found in B) have οἴδαμεν δέ 
(Tisch.); G reads merely οἴδαμεν. ---- Tisch. 7, following A, B*, G, &, etc., reads 
γινώσκομεν, whilst the Rec., according to B**, K, etc., is γινώσκωμεν (Tisch. 2, 
Lachm., Buttm.); the latter is probably a correction. —To τὸν ἀληθινόν, A, 
several min., vss., and Fathers add Θεόν, which, though approved of by Liicke, 
De Wette, Reiche, is with justice not accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., since it 
may easily be recognized to be an interpolation. S* has τὸ ἀληθ.:; δ), however, 
τόν. --- ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος]. According to A, B, 8, many min., etc., the article 7, which 
is only supported by a few min., is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, 
inasmuch as it is either ζωὴ αἰώνιος, or 7 ζωὴ 7 αἰώνιος, or 7 αἰώνιος ζωῆ (John xvii. 
3), that always appears in John, but never 7 ζωὴ αἰώνιος, The grounds which 
Frommann (p. 91 ff.).adduces for the retention of the article are not adequate. 
— Ver. 21. Instead of ἑαυτούς (Rec., according to A, K, etc., Tisch.), B, G, x* 


(δ 1 : ἑαυτούς) read ἑαυτά (Lachm.); this is probably a correction with reference to 
τεκνία. 


Ver. 1 shows that the believer, as born of God, necessarily loves his 
brother. The two elements of the Christian life, faith and love, are repre- 
sented in their real unity. —rd¢ ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός 
refers back to chap. iv. 15; comp. ii. 22, iv. 2; instead of ὁ Χριστός, the 
apostle in ver. 5 puts ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ; comp. iii. 23, from which, however, it 
does not follow that ὁ Χριστος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ are to the apostle exactly 
identical ideas, but certainly that he only is Christ to him, who is also Son 


of God. That John says here ὁ Χριστός, is oceasioned by the antithesis to 


CHAP. V. 2. 601 
the false teachers; comp. on this Weiss, p. 155 ff. Grotius erroneously 
explains: qui credere se ostendit: it is not the manifestation of faith, but 
faith itself, that is the subject. —é τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται; for faith is not a 
human, but a divine work in us.! This first sentence forms the premise 
from which the apostle draws his conclusion. He does not specially 
emphasize the self-evident intermediate thought: πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Θεόν, but presupposing it,? he says: καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν 
γεννήσαντα, ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ]. ὁ γεγενν. ἐξ αὐτοῦ 
is not “Christ” (Augustine, Hilarius, a Lapide, etc.), but “the believer.” 
Calvin, correctly: Sub numero singulari omnes fideles Ap. designat. Est 
autem argumentum ex communi naturae ordine sumptum. By the last thought 
Calvin rightly indicates why the apostle here says “τὸν γεννήσαντα᾽» 
instead of τὸν Θεόν, and “τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ" instead of τὸν 
ἀδελφόν. ---- ἀγαπᾷ is not subjunctive “let him love,” but indicative “he 
loves;” John is here expressing not an exhortation, but a fact. 

Ver. 2 states how love to the “children of God” is to be recognized. 
The sign of it is: ὅταν τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ 
τηρῶμεν (ποιῶμεν). The difficulty, that whereas elsewhere the keeping of 
the commandments or brotherly love is mentioned as the evidence of love 
to God (or of knowing God), comp. ii. 3, iv. 20, 21, here the converse 
relationship is represented, so that, as De Wette says, “the apostle here 
makes the cause (love to God) the token of the effect (love to the breth- 
ren),” cannot be solved by the arbitrary assumption of an attraction, which 
Oecumenius supposes when he interprets, δεῖγμα τῆς εἰς Θεὺν ἀγάπης τὴν εἰς τὸν 
ἀδελφὸν ἀγάπην τίθεται, and which Grotius distinctly expresses when he para- 
phrases: ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅταν ἀγαπῶμεν τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ 
καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν ; nor even with De Wette by the view “that τὰς 
ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν is the principal clause, and τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν only the 
anticipated confirmation of it, so that the one result of love to God is put 
for a token of the other:” but the explanation lies in this, that these two 
elements, “love to God” and “love to the brethren as children of God,” in 
reality mutually prove one another. By the addition of the words, καὶ τὰς 
ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν, it is brought out that love to God necessarily shows 
itself in the obedient keeping of His commandments. This obedience, 
rooted in love to God, is equally with the former the token of true brotherly 
love, because the commandments of God include the duties which we owe 


1 The relationship between being born of 
God and faith is not to be expressed thus, 
that first the latter and then the former 
follows; but neither is it first the former and 
then the latter, but being born of God hap- 
pens in this way, that God works faith in 
man. ‘The new birth is,” as it runs in the 
Mecklenburg Catechism, “the working and 
gift of faith.” The πιστεύειν, which begins 
with the gift of πίστις, is therefore the result, 
and hence also the token, of being born of 
God, as the ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην (chap. ii. 29) 
and the ἀγαπᾷν (chap. iii. 7). 


2 That this thought is presupposed by 
John, which Ebrard and Braune erroneously 
deny, is proved by the fact that John does 
not say here, ὁ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγεννημένος, but 
instead of it, 6 ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα. 

8 He who loves God has therein an evidence 
that he loves the brethren also —as τέκνα τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, because brotherly love is the necessary 
result of love to God; but it is also quite as 
true that he who loves the brethren has 
therein an evidence of love to God, because 
the latter is the necessary cause of the 
former. 


602 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


\ 

to the brethren. He therefore who regards it as incumbent on him to fulfil 
God’s commandments, possesses therein the evidence that he loves his 
brethren, the τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, that his love to them is not mere appearance, 
but reality: similarly Liicke, Sander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Diister- 
dieck, Braune, interpret; Calvin, on the other hand, gives the thought an 
erroneous direction when he says: “mune docet, recte et ordine amari homines, 
quum Deus priores obtinet; vult sic mutuam coli inter nos caritatem, ut Deus 
praeferatur.”* — It is further to be observed, that the first ἀγαπῶμεν is neither 
subjunctive nor used instead of the future (Carpzov, Lange), but is simple 
indicative; and that ὅταν is not = quamdiu (Carpzov, Lange), but con- 
ditional particle, as ἐάν, chap. ii. 3. 

Ver. 3 refers to the last two ideas, which were simply mentioned co- 
ordinatively, and expresses their unity: αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ]. αὕτη 
is explained by the following ἔνα, --- ἐστίν is to be kept in its proper meaning, 
though iva follows; the paraphrase: “it brings this with it, it includes 
the endeavor” (De Wette), weakens the thought; iva states the import of the 
ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ, to the realization of which it is directed. Quite incorrectly 
Grotius takes ἡ ἀγάπη metonymicailly for: ostensio dilectionis. — καὶ ai ἐντολαὶ 
αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ eiciv is connected with the preceding as a new idea; βαρεῖαι 
= “heavy, as an oppressive burden ; "1 comp. Luke xi. 46: φορτία δυσβάστακτα, 
and Matt. xi. 30: @opriov ἐλαφρόν. It is grammatically incorrect to explain 
βαρεῖαι: “difficult to fulfil” (Ebrard). The idea is, indeed, expressed 
absolutely, but from the confirmation that follows in ver. 4 it is evident 
that the apostle meant it in special reference to those who are born of God. 

Ver. 4. Confirmation of the preceding thought. — πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ]. The neuter is used here as in Gospel of John iii. 6, vi. 37, xvii. 
2; it serves “to bring out the general category;” see Meyer on John iii. 6; 
comp. Winer, p. 160; according to the sense = πάντες οἱ, x.7.A., it is not the 
disposition, but persons, that are meant. Quite erroneous is the remark of 
Baumgarten-Crusius: “the γεγενν, ἐκ τ, Θ. has here only an external signifi- 
cation: whatever has the position of God's children. ’ — νικᾷ τὸν κόσμον, for 
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, Chap. iv. 4. --- νικὰ is the simple present; 
in the conflict between the κόσμος and him who is born of God, the -latter 
is constantly gaining the victory. Baumgarten-Crusius unsatisfactorily ex- 
plains νικᾷν by “to keep one’s self innocent;” this does not exhaust the idea 
of victory; that is not obtained when we take our stand against the enemy, 
but only when the enemy is overcome. The completion of the victory in 
its full sense certainly only takes place with the second coming of Christ. — 
Rickli and De Wette explain κόσμος by ‘‘love of the world and of self:” 
better Liicke, Calvin, Sander, Diisterdieck, Briickner, etc., “all that strives 


1 Spener: ‘ We are to understand the 
heaviness of a burden that is so oppressive 


after His own image, cannot be grievous to 
the latter; if, however, they are so, that is 


that one cannot bear it, that is, painful.’’ 
Calovius: “ Dicit ea non esse gravia, quia non 
aggravant, aut instar molis onerosae praemunt 
renatum.” The commandments of God, as 
the demands of His love on man, who is made 


because man has departed from his original 
relationship to God; to the believer they are 
not grievous, because as the child of God he 
has gone back to the original relationship of 
love to God. 


CHAP. V. 5, 6. 603 


against the will of God within and without man;” but even this is too 
abstract. It is the kingdom of the wicked one, which, under its prince the 
Devil, striving against the kingdom of God, seeks to tempt the believer to 
unbelief and disobedience to the divine commands. — As the apostle wants 
to show how he that is born of God overcomes the world, he continues: «a2 
αὕτη ἐστὶν 7 νίκη ἡ νικῆσασα τὸν κόσμον ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν. The pronoun 
αὕτη refers to ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν, which in its import is no other than the πίστις, ὅτι 
ἸΙησοὺς ἐστὶν ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ Θεοῦ, ver. 5. The expression is peculiar, inasmuch as 
faith is described as the νίκη itself, and the νικᾷν is ascribed to it. Lorinus 
rightly remarks: victoria proprie non vincit, sed comparatur pugnando, sed 
energiam continet ea formula, denotans in quo sita sit vincendi ratio, unde 
victoria parta.1 The aorist νικήσασα is not to be turned into the present 
(a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, etc.) ; even though the victory is a continuous 
one, in which every believer is constantly taking part, the aorist neverthe- 
less indicates that faith from the beginning overcame the world. The 
explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius: “it is already victory won that ye 
have become believers” (similarly Neander), is incorrect; it ‘is not here 
intended to commend faith as the result of a fight, but as that which fights, 
and which has won the victory; hence the active ἡ νικήσασα (so also Braune). 
Ver. 5. Confirmation of the preceding thought by an appeal to the expe- 
rience of the readers (Liicke). — τίς ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν, «.7.2.]. The same form of 
speech as in chap. ii. 22. The thought is: “ Credens omnis et solus vincit” 
(Bengel). With ὅτι ᾿Ιησοὺς ἐστὶν, «.7.4., comp. ver. 1, chap. ii. 22, iii. 23.— The 
believer is victorious because he is born of God; vv. 1 and 4 (Diisterdieck). 
Vy. 6-12. That Jesus is the Son of God, is confirmed by divine testimony. 
Ver. 6. In order to arrive at an understanding of this verse we must first 
of all look at the expression, ἔρχεσθαι δι ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος. The question, what 
is to be understood by ὕδωρ and αἷμα, has been answered in very different 
ways. The explanations worthy of notice are these: 1. That the apostle 
means thereby the blood and water which flowed from Christ’s side on the 
cross, John xix. 34; this explanation is found in Augustine, Vatablus, and 
many of the old commentators; but some of them consider that the apostle 
here mentions this water and blood as the proof of the actual occurrence of 
the death of Christ, others that he uses them as symbols of baptism and the 
Lord’s Supper. 2. That by ὕδωρ and aiva are to be understood the sacra- 
ments appointed by Christ; this is the explanation of Wolf (who, however, 
understands an allusion to the incident recorded in John xix. 34), S. Schmid, 
Carpzovius, Baur, Sander, Besser, and others.?- 3. That by ὕδωρ John means 


1 Ebrard opposes this explanation with the 
arbitrary statement that ἡ νίκη ‘is the action 
which conquers the world” (!). 

2 To this class belongs also Luther’s inter- 
pretation (in the 1st ed. of Walch), which, 
however, differs in this, that according to it 
water and blood together constitute the sacra- 
ment of baptism; he says: ‘‘ Most commen- 
tators consider both sacraments;...I do 
not object, indeed, to this explanation, but I 


understand the phrase of baptism merely. . . . 
Christ comes not by water only, but by water 
which is mixed with blood, that is, by baptism, 
which is colored with blood.” So also in the 
interpretation of the following verse: ‘If you 
are baptized with water, the blood of Christ 
is sprinkled by the Word. If you are bap- 
tized in blood, you are at the same time 
washed by the Holy Spirit through the Word.” 
In his 2d ed., on the other hand, Luther under- 


604 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

the baptism of Christ by John the Baptist, and by αἷμα the atoning death 
which He suffered. This is the explanation of Tertullian, Theophylact, 
Cappellus, Heumann, Semler, Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgen- 
feld, Neander, Ewald, Briickner, Liicke (third edition, Introduction, p. 160; 
comp. Bertheau’s note on this passage, p. 381), Erdmann, Myrberg, Weiss, 
Braune, etc. Not a few commentators, however, divide the explanation, 
understanding ὕδωρ of the baptism appointed by Christ, and aiva of His own 
death; so Hornejus, Knapp, Liicke (in the commentary on this passage; also 
in the third edition, Introduction, p. 110; differently, Introduction, p. 160), 
De Wette, Rickli, Gerlach, Frommann (p. 596), Diisterdieck, ete.2— By 
many commentators (as Bede, a Lapide, Russmeyer, Spener, Bengel, etc.) 
different interpretations are connected together in one or the other of these 
ways.8 


To these interpretations may be added others, the arbitrariness of which is 
evident at the first glance. To this class the following belong: 1. That by idwp 
and αἷμα John denotes the two elements of the physical life of Jesus; this is the 
view of Schulthess. Wetstein adds even the following πνεῦμα, and says that 
the apostle wants to prove that Christ was a verus homo, who was formed ex 
spiritu, sanguine et aqua sive humore.* 2. That by both words, or at least by 
ὕδωρ, the ethical nature of Christ is indicated; thus Grotius interprets δι᾽ ὕδατος 
= per vitam purissimain, quae per aquam significari solet. Socinus under- 
stands by ὕδωρ: ipsa doctrina pura cum vitae puritate conjuncta. 3. That in 
ὕδωρ and αἰμα it is not so much the baptism and death of Christ themselves that 
are to be thought of, as rather the testimonies that were given in connection 
with them; in ὕδωρ the testimony of the divine voice in the baptism (Wahl); in 
αἷμα either the testimony of the good centurion (Stroth), or the events. that 
followed the death of Jesus, namely, His resurrection and ascension (Wahl, 


stands water and blood, with reference to 
John xix. 34, of the two sacraments: “" This 
brief summary has been kept in the Church, 
that out of the side of Jesus the two sacra- 
ments flowed.” 

1 Ewald understands by them, however, not 
merely the baptism and the death, but by ὕδωρ 
the baptism, ‘‘ with every thing special which 
besides occurred in His case,” and by αἷμα 
“the bloody death on the cross, with every 
thing still more wonderful that was connected 
with it.” 

2 To this class Ebrard also belongs, but he 
differs from the other commentators in this 
respect, that he understands by ὕδωρ Christian 
baptism indeed, but ““ not the entire sacrament 
of baptism (consisting of symbol and thing 
signified), but only the symbol in the sacra- 
ment;’’ hence, only that side of Christian 
baptism in which it is identical with the bap- 
tism of John. Clearly an unjustifiable division 
of the sacrament! The same view is no doubt 
that of Hofmann, who says (Schriftbew., 11. 
1, p. 76): “ αἷμα is, in contrast with ὕδωρ, the 
blood shed by Jesus for the remission of sins, 


differing from the water*of baptism, which 
John also performed;” then on p. 470 he 
asserts that ὕδωρ is not the baptism which 
Jesus received, but that which He introduced, 
hence it denotes that which Jesus had in 
common with the Baptist ; and in ii. 2, p. 221, 
he describes ὕδωρ precisely as ‘the baptism 
with water originated by John.” But how 
strange it is to say, nevertheless, that the bap- 
tism which Jesus introduced is the baptism of 
water originated by John! 

3 Bengel: ‘‘ Aqua dicit baptismum, quem 
primum administravit Johannes; ideo in aqua 
baptizare missus, ut Jesus manifestaretur tan- 
quam Filius Dei. Porro baptismus etiam per 
discipulos Jesu administratus est. Sanguis 
est utique sanguis —Jesu Christi, qui effusus 
in passione, in coena dominica bibitur.” Ter- 
tullian says: ‘‘ Venerat per aquam et san- 
guinem, sicut Joh. scripsit, ut aqua tingeretur, 
sanguine glorificaretur. Proinde ut nos aqua 
faceret vocatos, sanguine electos, hos duos 
baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris emisit.” 

4 Similarly Paulus in reference to αἷμα; 
ὕδωρ he understands of the baptism of John. 


CHAP. V. 6. 605 
Ziegler, Lange), or even the testimony of God in John xii. 28 (Oecumenius).} 
4, That in these two expressions we are to consider the operations brought into 
exercise by Christ; in ὕδωρ, regeneratio et fides (Clemens Al.), or purgatio 
(Cameron); in αἷμα, cognitio (Clemens Al.), or expiatio (Cameron), or redemptio 
(Bullinger). To this class belongs also Calvin’s explanation: ego existimo 
Joannem hic fructum et effectum exprimere ejus rei, quam in historia evangelica 
narrat. Christi latus sanguinis et aquae fons erat, ut scirent fideles, veram 
munditiem (cujus figurae erant veteres baptismt) in eo sibi constare: ut scirent 
etiam completum, quod omnes sanguinis aspersiones olim promiserant. 5. That 
those expressions and πνεῦμα are descriptive of the threefold redemptive office 
of Christ: that ὕδωρ (= coelestis doctrini, Bullinger) represents Him as prophet, 
aiua as priest, and πνεῦμα as king. Here may be added the strange explanation 
of ὕδωρ as the tears which Jesus shed on various occasions, and of αἰμα as the 
blood which He shed at His circumcision. Again, some of the old commenta- 
tors understood by αἷμα the blood of the martyrs. 


It is at all events incorrect to permit ourselves, in the interpretation of 
ὕδωρ and αἰμα, to be led by the question as to the nature of their testimony 
(Sander: “It must be maintained as the chief difficulty in the passage before 
us, what are the three witnesses on earth’), for that is not the subject in this 
verse, in which the πνεῦμα only is mentioned as bearing witness.? By the 
words ovréc ἐστιν, «.7.2., the apostle simply states who Jesus the Son of God 
is. — With regard to the expression ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾽, κ.τ.λ., most commentators 
interpret as if it were “ οὗτος ἔρχεται,᾽ OF, “ οὐτός ἐστιν ἐρχόμενος." Others, it is 
true, have not overlooked the aorist, but they interpret it as if it expressed 
something present; thus Sander = “has come and comes,” against which 
Bengel rightly says, non dicit: ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Praesenti, sed ὁ ἐλθών Aoristo 
tempore, Praeteriti vim habenti. It is true, it is further correct when, in oppo- 
sition to De Wette, who takes ἐλθών as synonymous with ἐληλυθώς, chap. iv. 2, 
Briickner objects that by the aorist as a purely historic tense nothing con- 
tinuous or permanent is expressed; but even then the expression does not 
obtain complete justice. It is to be observed that John did not write “ἦλθε, 
or “ ἐστὶν ἐλθών, but ἐστὶν ὁ ἐλθών. By the participle with the definite article, 
it is not a verbal, but a nominal, and, if it is not in apposition to a preceding 
substantive (as in John i. 18, 29, iii. 13, vi. 44, and passim), a substantive 
idea that is expressed; comp. John i. 15, 33, 111. 31, 36, and many other 
passages. It therefore does not mean “this came,” or “this is one who 
came,” but “this is he that came;” by this predicate it is not merely stated 


1 Oecumenius: διὰ τοῦ ὕδατος, τουτέστιν, ἐν 
τῷ δι᾽ ὕδατος βαπτίσματι ἐξεφάνθη υἱὸς Θεοῦ ὃ 
᾿Ιησοῦς διὰ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς μαρτυρίας" διὰ δὲ τοῦ 
αἵματος" ὅτι μέλλων σταυροῦσθαι ἔλεγε, δοξασόν 
με σὺ πάτερ, καὶ ἠνέχθῃ ἡ φωνή, και ἐδόξασα, 
και πάλιν δοξάσω" διὰ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος, OTL ὡς 
Θεὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν. 

2 This is usually too little noticed by com- 
mentators. Even Liicke — who remarks on the 
following words, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα, x.7.A., that “ it 
was not said of the water and blood that they 


bear witness,” and then “it is only through 
the πνεῦμα that both of them, which in them- 
selves give no testimony, likewise become wit- 
nesses’? — has in his discussion of the mean- 
ing of ὕδωρ and αἷμα all along regarded them 
as ‘‘ witnesses ’’ for the Messiahship of Jesus. 
Briickner also, in his interpretation of the 
ideas ὕδωρ and αἷμα, has all along included the 
element of testimony, whereby the clearness 
of his statement is only too much diminished. 


606 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


what the subject which is here spoken of (namely, οὗτος) has done, but the 
subject is thereby characterized as the particular person to whom this predi- 
cate is suitable as a specific characteristic; according to the analogy of John 
i. 33 (οὐτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ), 111. 13 (ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς), 
and other passages, the expression therefore serves to state something char- 
acteristic of the Messianic office of Christ. If this is taken into considera- 
tion, the incorrectness of Augustine’s interpretation (see above) follows; 
for even if the flowing of the blood and water from the side of Jesus was 
intended by John not so much as a proof of the actual occurrence of Christ’s 
death (Liicke), but as a wonder proving the Messiahship of Jesus (Meyer on 
John xix. 34), yet this would be only a very subordinate proof, which by 
no means states a characteristic sign of the Messiah as such. —In the life 
of Jesus there are two points which correspond with the expressions idwp 
and αἰμα, namely, His baptism at the beginning of His Messianic work, and 
Tis bloody death at the end of it; by His baptism Jesus entered on His medi- 
atorial work; it formed the initiatio (Erdmann, Myrberg) of it, but this did 
not take place only by means of what happened at the baptism, but by the 
act of baptism itself; by His death he effected the atonement itself, inasmuch 
as by His blood he blotted out the guilt of the sinful world, for χωρὶς αἱματεκχυ- 
σίας ov γίνεται ἄφεσις (Heb. ix. 22). John may with justice therefore describe 
Christ as the Mediator by calling Him the one who came δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος.} 
‘ Against the view that ὕδωρ and αἶμα are to be understood of the sacraments 
instituted by Christ, is not only the circumstance that these are only the 
means for the appropriation of the atonement effected by Him, whereas the 
subject here is the accomplishment of the atonement itself, but also the use of 
the aorist ἐλθών, instead of which, in that case, the present would have to be 
used, and also the expression αἷμα, which by itself alone never in the N. T. 
signifies the Lord’s Supper; even in 1 Cor. xii. 13 ἐποτίσθησαν is not an 
allusion to the Lord’s Supper, but to the communication of the Spirit in bap- 
tism. In opposition to the idea that aiva indeed signifies the death which 
Christ suffered, but that ὕδωρ does not denote the baptism which He received, 
but the baptism which He instituted, are (1) that the close connection of 
the two words (without repetition of διά before αἵματος) is only suitable if the 
ideas correspond with one another, which is not the case if by δι ὕδατος we 
understand an institution of Christ, but by αἵματος, on the other hand, the 
blood shed by Christ ;? (2) that the simple expression ὕδωρ is little suited for 
a description of Christian baptism ; 8 (8) that as the institution of baptism 


1 That ‘“‘Jesus in both cases proved His 
obedience to His Father’s will, and that His 
obedience proved Him to be the Son of God, 
the holy and innocent One” (Braune), are 
ideas which John here in no way suggests. 

2 This inconsistency is only apparently 
removed by Diisterdieck’s observation that 
*‘ John regards the blood of the Lord shed at 
His death as something which has a substan- 
tial existence; ”’ for even if this be correct, yet 
there remains the difference that the water of 


Christian baptism is something at present ex- 
isting, but the blood which Christ shed 1s only 
regarded as such by Jobn. It is no better 
with the interpretation of Hofmann, who at 
one time describes αἷμα as ‘‘the blood of 
Christ shed for remission,” and at another 
time as “ the sprinkling of blood which Christ 
bestows.” 

8 It is indeed just this very fact that dis- 
tinguishes Christian baptism from that of 
John, that the former in its nature is not ὕδωρ 


CHAP. V. 6. 607 


took place after the death of Christ, and necessarily presupposes it, John, if 
he had understood by ὑδωρ Christian baptism, would certainly have put ὕδατος 
not Lefore, but after, αἵματος. Hilgenfeld and Neander have rightly shown 
that if ἔρχεσθαι δι᾽ aivutoc signifies something pertaining to the Messiah per- 
sonally, the same must be the case with ἔρχεσθαι δι᾽ ὕδατος. The connection 
must be the same in both expressions. If by aiua is meant the death which 
Christ underwent, then by ὑδωρ can thereforé only be meant the baptism 
which He likewise underwent. 


The objection of Knapp (with whom Liicke and Sander agree), that ἐλθὼν δὲ 
ὑδατος in this sense is much more appropriately said of John the Baptist than of 
Christ, is untenable, for that expression may at least just as well be used of him 
who allowed himself to be baptized as of him who baptized; Erdmann: sane id 
non alius momenti, ac si quis objiceret, ἔρχεσθαι dv’ αἵματος non posse dici de 
Christi sanguine et morte, sed potius de iis, qui cruentam mortem ei paraverint. 
There is just as little in the objection of Liicke, that Christ allowed Himself to 
be baptized, not in order to purify Himself, but to fulfil all righteousness; since 
two ideas are here placed in antagonism to one another, which are by no means 
mutually exclusive, as Jesus underwent the baptism of purification just for the 
very purpose of fulfilling all righteousness. 


With regard to the expression ἐλθὼν διά, διά is not to be separated from 
ἐλθῶν, so that o ἐλθών in itself would denote “the Saviour who came,” and δι᾽, 
x.7.2., would state “in what way Jesus is the Saviour who came” (Hofmann, 
in the Schrifibew., second edition, p. 469); for that Christ is called ὁ ἐρχόμενος 
(Matt. xi. 4; Luke vii. 19, 20) does not confirm, but contradicts, this inter- 
pretation ; besides, John does not here want to bring out how Jesus is the 
Messiah, but that He is so. The preposition διὰ has been differently 
explained: usually it is here taken simply in the sense of accompaniment, 
which, however, is unjustifiable; in this commentary, with reference to 
Heb. ix. 12 (where it is indicated by διά that the high priest entered into 
the holy place by means of the blood which he had with him), the idea of 
instrumentality is combined with that of accompaniment, inasmuch as 
Jesus operated as mediator by means of ὕδωρ καὶ aiva; similarly Briickner 
explains διά as a preposition of instrumentality, namely, in the passive 
sense, as “by which he was proved;” διά, however, is here connected 
neither with an idea of operation nor of verification, but with ἐλθών. 
Weiss takes the preposition in this way, that ὕδωρ κ. αἷμα are thereby 
“introduced as historical elements of the life of Christ, through which His 
career passed,” but it might be more suitable to interpret δι᾽ ὑδ,, «.7.2., in 
this way, that thereby the elements are brought out by which the ἐλθών was 
specially characterized ; just as in 2 Cor. v. 7, by διὰ πίστεως the feature is 
mentioned by which our present περιπατεῖν is characterized ; comp. also Rom. 
Vill. 24: δι’ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, and Heb. xii. 1; Braune simply abides by 


as the latter is, as John the Baptist himself, was described by him as ὁ βαπτιζων ἐν πνεύ- 
marking his difference from Christ, said: ἐγὼ ματι ἁγίῳ (John i. 33). 
βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι (John i. 26), whereas Jesus 


008 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

the idea of instrumentality, without further explaining himself on the 
subject. The question, whether οὗτος refers to ᾿Ιησοὺς or to ὁ vide τοῦ Θεοῦ, is 
to be answered in this way, that it refers to the whole idea: ᾿Ιησοῦς 6 υἱὸς τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ; Jesus, the Son of God, is the subject of Christian faith; it is He who 
came by water and blood. In favor of this reference is the addition ᾿Ιησοῦς 
ὁ Χριστός, which, as ᾿Ιησοῦς shows, is not an explanatory apposition of the 
predicate (‘He who came by water and blood,” i.e., Christ), but is in 
apposition to the subject οὗτος, which is more particularly defined by the 
predicate; the preceding Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is thereby resumed, but in this 
way, that in consequence of ὁ ἐλθὼν, x.7.2., the idea ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is changed 
into ὁ Χριστός. ---- The import of the preceding lies, as cannot be doubted, 
simply in the statement which is therein contained; Ebrard, indeed, thinks 
that the apostle wants thereby to express “that in the loving and merciful 
act of the devotion of Jesus to death lies the power by which He has 
overcome the world;” but although in the preceding the victory over the 
world is ascribed to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, yet it is not to 
be inferred from this that it is Christ’s victory over the world that is the 
subject here, as John does not make the most remote suggestion of that. — 
By the words: οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ TH aiuatt, 
the apostle brings out with special emphasis the fact that Jesus did not 
come by water only, but by both water and blood; as the latter ‘wo, in their 
combination, are contrasted with the former one, the principal emphasis 
plainly falls on the blood, as that by which the Mediator as such has 
operated. This emphasis is not intended for the purpose of indicating the 
difference between Jesus and John the Baptist (Liicke, De Wette, Diister- 
dieck, Ebrard); for, on the one hand, it is self-evident to Christians that 
Jesus would not be the mediator if He had not acted differently from John; 
and, on the other hand, the feature which distinguishes Jesus from John in 
regard to baptism is this, that the latter baptized with water, but the former 
baptizes with the Holy Ghost.! The addition has a polemic import (not 
against “disciples of John,” Ewald, but) against the Docetans, who in a 
certain sense indeed taught that Christ came δι’ ὕδατος, but denied that He 
came 6’ αἵματος, inasmuch as, according to their heresy, Christ united 
Himself with Jesus at His baptism, but separated from Him again before 
His death (Erdmann, Myrberg, Weiss, Braune); indeed, it is only by the 
reference to these heretics, against whom the apostle frequently directs a 
polemic in the Epistle, that the whole section from ver. 6 to ver. 12 can be 
explained. — With regard to grammar, it is to be observed that μόνον is not 
‘connected with ob, but with ὕδατι, and therefore there can be no «a after 
ἀλλά, Which is not observed by A. Buttmann (p. 317 [Εἰ T., 369 1.1). The 


subordinate clause, in the former of a baptism 
which was not merely a baptism of water, but 


1 Erdmann has rightly pointed out that the 
view, according to which ὕδωρ is understood 


of the baptism instituted by Christ, is opposed 
to the idea that the addition refers to John the 
Baptist; this antagonism can only be removed 
if we explain the idea ὕδωρ in the principal 
clause differently from its meaning in this 


also of the Spirit, but in the latter of a baptism 
which is only a baptism of water; but that 
would be an interpretation which condemns 
itself. 


CHAP. V. 6. 609 
preposition év simply expresses the idea of accompaniment without bringing 
out the accessory notion which lies in διά ; comp. Heb. ix. 12 and 25.— The 
definite article before ὕδατι and aiuar: is explained by the fact that both have 
been already mentioned. Bengel, correctly: Articulus habet vim relativam. — 
καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν]. Just as in regard to ὕδωρ and αἶμα, so in 
regard to πνεῦμα, the views of commentators vary very much. The following 
opinions are to be rejected as utterly arbitrary: (1) that it denotes the 
psychical element, which, with aiva and ὕδωρ as the physical elements, con- 
stituted the human nature of Christ (Wetstein); (2) that it is the -spirit 
which Christ at His death committed into His Father’s hands (Augustine, 
etc.); (3) that it means “the teaching of Jesus” (Carpzovius); (4) that 
τὸ πνεῦμα is = ὁ πνευματικός, Whereby John means himself (Ziegler, Stroth). 
By τὸ πνεῦμα can only be understood either ‘he Holy Ghost Himself or the 
spiritual life produced by Him in believers.1_ Against the latter view there 
are, however, two reasons, —(1) that τὸ πνεῦμα never has this meaning 
without a more particular definition indicating it; and (2) that the τὸ 
uaprupoiv, Which is added, here defines the πνεῦμα as something specifically 
different from the subjective life of man. We must therefore understand by 
it the objective Spirit of God, yet not, however, inasmuch as He descended 
on Christ at His baptism, and testified to Him as the Messiah, nor inasmuch 
as He was in Christ as the divine power which manifested itself in His 
miracles,? but (as most commentators correctly interpret) the Holy Ghost, 
whom Christ sent to His disciples at Pentecost, and who is the permanent 
possession of His Church. The predicate ἐστὲ τὸ μαρτυροῦν is not put for 
μαρτυρεῖ or for ἐστὶ μαρτυροῦν ; here also the article must not be overlooked; 
τὸ μαρτυροῦν is a nominal idea, and, moreover, not adjectival, but substantive: 
“the Spirit is the witness” (Liicke). The office of witnessing belongs 
essentially to the Holy Ghost; comp. John xv. 26.8— As the apostle con- 
tinues: ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια, he seems thereby to state the object of 
μαρτυρεῖν: 4 but this view is opposed to the whole context, according to 
which the apostle does not want to bring out that the Spirit is truth, but 
“that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.” Therefore ὅτε here must, with 
Gerhard, Calovius, and most modern commentators (De Wette, Liicke, 


1 Sander is very uncertain in his explana- 
tion of τὸ πνεῦμα; first he explains it by ‘‘the 
conversion of man accomplished by the com- 
munication of the Holy Ghost,” but then he 
puts instead of this, without further explana- 
tion: ‘‘ those who are born of the Spirit” (!). 

2 Grotius understands by τὸ πνεῦμα even 
the miracles themselves: ‘‘admiranda ejus 
opera a virtute divina manifeste proceden- 
tia.” 

8 The assertion of Ebrard, that John in 
these words shows ‘‘ how and how far our 
faith in Christ, in consequence of the fact that 
Christ bears in Himself the power that over- 
comes the world, is itself an overcoming 
power,” and that μαρτυρεῖν therefore ‘ must 
denote an act which is in substance identical 


with the act of overcoming the world,” is 
simply to be rejected. 

4 In connection with this view, Luther takes 
τὸ πνεῦμα in a different sense from that in the 
principal sentence, namely, as “the word 
which has saved us by baptism and by blood,” 
and of which the Spirit bears witness that 16 
proceeds from the Spirit of truth, and is the 
truth itself; Besser distinguishes τὸ wv. in the 
principal clause from the πν. in the subordinate 
clause, in that he understands by the former 
“the Spirit bearing witness to the heart of 
believers,” and by the latter ‘‘ the Spirit domi- 
nating in the sacraments and in the word.” 
Ebrard interprets: ‘‘ the Spirit evidences itself 
. .. by its power;” clearly the words * by its 
power ” are a pure importation. 


610 THE FIRST’ EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune), be taken as causal particle, so 
that the subordinate clause serves to strengthen the preceding thought. It 
is because the Spirit is the truth, that the Spirit is the witness in the fullest 
sense of the word. — To interpret ἡ ἀλήθεια = ἀληθές (Grotius) is to weaken . 
the thought; by the definite article the idea ἀλήθεια is indicated in its full 
concrete vividness; comp. John xiv. 6, where Christ calls Himself ἡ ἀλήθεια. 
Weiss calls attention to the way in which this designation proves the person- 
ality of the Spirit, inasmuch as “the truth is the nature of God Himself 
made manifest.” — The object which is to be supplied with τὸ μαρτυροῦν can 
be no other than the thought which John has previously expressed in the 
first half of the verse. 

Ver. 7. By means of the witness of the Spirit, water and blood also 
attain to the position of witnesses. As such John now adduces them in 
connection with the Spirit, in order by the weight of this threefold witness 
to confirm the truth that the Son of God, who is identical with Jesus, is 
the Messiah. — The ὅτι which begins the verse means neither “jam vero” 
(Grotius, Calov.), nor “hence” (Meyer), nor “consequently ” (Baumgarten- 
Crusius), but “ for.”. This connection with the foregoing is explained by 
the fact that the truth of the testimony of the Holy Ghost (who is the truth 
itself) is strengthened by the circumstance that it is not He alone that bears 
witness, but that with Him the water and the blood bear witness also, as 
the two elements by means of which the atonement took place (similarly 
Liicke).1. De Wette unnecessarily supplies: “and, humanly considered, the 
witness is also true, for.” Paulus connects ver. 9, as consequent, with this 
verse as antecedent: “because there are three, etc., then, if, etc., the 
witness of God is much greater.” This construction, which is contrary to 
the style of John, is the more to be rejected as an erroneous idea arises 
from it. — τρεῖς εἰσιν of μαρτυροῦντες]. The masculine is used because the 
three that are mentioned are regarded as concrete witnesses (Liicke, etc.), 
but not because they are “types of men representing these three ” (Bengel),? 
or symbols of the Trinity (as they are interpreted in the Scholion of Mat- 
thaei, p. 188, mentioned in the critical notes). It is uncertain whether 
John brings out this triplicity of witnesses with reference to the well-known 
legal rule, Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15, Matt. xviii. 16, etc., as several commenta- 
tors suppose. It is not to be deduced from the present, that ὕδωρ and aiua 
are things still at present existing, and hence the sacraments; for by means 
of the witness of the Spirit the whole redemptive life of Christ is perma- 
nently present, so that the baptism and death of Jesus — although belonging 
to the past— prove Him constantly to be the Messiah who makes atone- 
ment for the world (so also Braune). The participle οἱ μαρτυροῦντες; 


1 “Tn ver. 6 it was said that the witnessing 
Spirit is the truth, and hence it is implied that, 
to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Spirit 
unites with the water and blood, as the testi- 
mony of the truth. As John now assumes this 
conclusion from ver. 6, he adds, passing on to 
another subordinate confirmatory proof: for,” 
etc. 


2 Tropum... Ap. adhibet ... ut hoc dicat: 
tria sunt genera hominum, qui ministerio 
testandi in terra funguntur: (1) illud... 
genus testium, quod praeconio evangelii vacat5 
(2) illud gen. test., quod baptismum adminis- 
trat, ut Johanues baptista et caeteri; (3) illud 
gen. test., quod passionem et mortem Domini 
spectavit et celebrat. : 


CHAP. V. 7. 611 


instead of. the substantive οἱ μάρτυρες, emphasizes more strongly the activity 
of the witnessing. —7d πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἰμα]. All these three 
expressions have here, of course, the same meaning as previously.!— καὶ 
of τρεὶς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν]. Luther, inaccurately: “and these three are one;” τὸ ἔν 
is the one specific object of the witness; “the three are directed to this one,” 
namely, in their thus unanimous witness. Storr, inaccurately : “they serve 
one cause, they promote one and the same object, eae νὰ the object 
previously mentioned (ν. 1, 5).” 


Remark. — According to the Rec., after of μαρτυροῦντες appear the words ἐν 
τῷ οὐρανῷ. . . οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (see the critical notes). Luther says in 
reference to them: “Τὸ appears as if this verse was inserted by the orthodox 
against the Arians, which, however, cannot suitably be done, because both here 
and there he speaks not of witnesses in heaven, but of witnesses on earth.”’ 
With this most modern commentators agree, with the exception of Besser and 
Sander. It is true, that, if we consider the contents of the whole Epistle, the 
idea of the three witnesses in heaven may be brought into connection with 
something or other that appears in the Epistle; but it does not follow from this 
that that idea has here a suitable, or even a necessary, place. This plainly is 
not the case, so much the more, as neither in what follows, nor in what’ imme- 
diately precedes, with which ver. 7 is closely connected by 67, is there the 
slightest reference to such a witness of the Trinity. There are clear and intelli- 
gible grounds in the foregoing for adducing the three witnesses πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, 
αἷμα, but not for adducing the three witnesses ὁ πατήρ, 6 λόγος, τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον: 
this trinity appears quite unprepared for; but the sequel is also opposed to it, 
for it makes it unintelligible what witness is meant by the μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
ver. 9, whether that of the three in heaven, or that of the three on earth. — To 
this it may be added that these two different classes of witnesses appear together 
quite unconnected; it is said, indeed, that these three witnesses agree in one, 
but not in what relationship the two threes stand to one another. — Besides, 
however, the idea in itself is utterly obscure; for what are we to understand by 
a witness in heaven? Bengel, it is true (with whom Sander agrees), says: 
“non fertur testimonium in coelo, sed in terra: qui autem testantur, sunt in 
terra, sunt in coelo; i.e., illi sunt naturae terrestris ef humanae, hi autem 
naturae divinae et gloriosae.’’ How untenable, however, this is, is shown, on 
the one hand, in the fact that ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ does not belong to εἰσιν, but rather to 
μαρτυροῦντες, and the text therefore does not speak of being, but of bearing 
witness, in heaven ; and, on the other hand, in the fact that according to it the 


1 Weiss erroneously refers the witness of 
the baptism: here to that which was given at 
the baptism of Christ, and the witness of the 
death to that which was given at the outflow- 
ing of His blood. — It is not by what happened 
in connection with them, but in themselves, 
that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are the μαρτυροῦντες. --- 
According to Ebrard, ὕδωρ here ‘tis the bap- 
tism of water instituted by Christ, as an ex- 
ternal institution, . . . as the representation of 
every means of grace to be administered by 
men, above all in its connection with the 
preaching of the word;” and αἷμα is “186 


blood of Christ, i.e., His atoning death,... 
not, however, the blood of Christ alone, but 
also the power of the blood of the testimony, 
which is shed from time to time by His disci- 
ples for the sake of confessing 9688." To 
this Ebrard further adds: ‘‘ we may say that 
in the water of baptism is embodied the con- 
fession which by its firmness overcomes the 
lie, and in the blood of testimony that love 
which by patience overcomes the power of the 
flesh.”’ This interpretation needs no refuta- 
tion. 


612 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


πνεῦμα which is connected with ὕδωρ and αἷμα must be regarded as something 
earthly and human. —There is further the un-Johannean character of the 
diction, as by John ὁ Θεός and ὁ λόγος, and similarly ὁ πατῆρ and ὁ υἱός, are 
certainly conjoined, but never 6 πατῆρ and 6 λόγος. Sander avails himself of 
the assumption, which is certainly very easy, of a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον: but this is here 
unwarrantable, for those ideas are so frequently occurring in John, and that 
mode of conjunction is not accidental, but is grounded on the nature of the 
case. We see that the interpolator wrote λόγος, because this suggested itself to 
him as a genuine Johannean expression, without reflecting that its connection 
with ta77#p isun-Johannean. Finally, the καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι is also strange. 
Bengel interprets: wnum sunt essentia, notitia, voluntate, atque adeo consensu 
testimonii. Bengel with justice puts the essentiality first, for it is just this that 
is denoted by the expression; but just this is unsuitable here, where the 
subject rather is the unity of the witness. 


Ver. 9 brings out the greatness of the witness of God, and our obligation 
to accept it. The two clauses which are here connected with one another 
do not perfectly correspond in form; for in the antecedent clause the idea 
that corresponds to the μείζων of the consequent clause is not expressed, nor 
in the consequent clause the idea that corresponds to the λαμβάνομεν of the 
antecedent. The sentence, if completed, would run: If we receive the wit- 
ness of men because it is of some value, much more must we receive the 
witness of God, as it has a much greater value (comp. A. Buttm., p. 338). 
The sentence contains a conclusion ex minore ad majus. The conjunction εἰ, 
as frequently, is not dubitative. —Briickner justly says, in opposition to 
Baur: “The witness of men is only alluded to on the side of its judicial 
value; there is not assumed to be in it an import which would be equal to 
that of the witness of God by water and blood and spirit.” 1— ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ 
Θεοῦ is here used quite generally; the more particular definition is only given 
by the sequel (so also Diisterdieck). —érz αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ]. With 
ὅτι it seems necessary to supply a thought to which it refers; Liicke supplies 
the thought: “if we accept the witness of God, we must believe that Jesus 
is the Christ, the Son of God;” Diisterdieck, with whom Braune agrees: “a 
witness of God now really exists, namely this . . .;” but such a supplement 
is not necessary if we suppose that the clause beginning with ὅτι is intended 
to give the reason of the contrast of the human and of the divine witness 
which here appears, in this sense: “I say, 7 μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ, for . . .” —In 
the reading, ὅτε (instead of ἣν) μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, which 
is attested by the best manuscripts, this second ὅτι may be taken as causal 
particle, in which case αὕτη would be referred to the witness spoken of in 
vy. 6 and 7, in this sense: “for this is the witness of God, since He has 
testified (it) of His Son;” but the want of an αὐτός before μεμαρτύρηκε is an 
obstacle to this view; it is therefore better to interpret ὅτι by “that,” and to 
refer αὕτη to this sentence which begins with ὅτι (Liicke, Erdmann, Diister- 
dieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Ewald, Brickner, Braune), so that the sense is: 


1 It is quite erroneous for Storr to understand by the witness of men specially the witness of 
John the Baptist. ᾿ 


CHAP. V. 10, 11. 613 


for this is (therein consists) the witness of God, that He has testified of His 
Son. By this witness we are to understand no other than that which was 
spoken of in the preceding, namely, the objective witness of the Spirit, not 
the internal witness, of which the apostle does not speak until afterwards 
(contrary to Diisterdieck), but still less, as Ebrard interprets, the witness 
in John i. 33. — With the reading ἦν, αὕτη must be referred back to the pre- 
ceding; the sense then is: “for that (vv. 6 and 7) is the witness of God 
which He has testified of His Son.” !—The perfect μεμαρτύρηκε is here to be 
taken in the same way as John frequently uses the perfect, namely, in this 
way, that the witness which God has given is to be regarded as permanently 
remaining. 

Ver. 10. God’s testimony of His Son has for its object faith in the Son 
of God. Hence, “ He that believeth on the Son hath the witness in himself.”? — 
τὴν μαρτυρίαν, i.e., the witness of God which was previously spoken of; ἔχει ἐν 
ἑαυτῷ, i.e., the witness is no longer merely external to him, but by virtue of 
his faith he has it in (not as Luther translates, “ with”) himself; the external 
has become internal to him. This thought forms the transition to that con- 
tained in ver. 11. The believer, namely, has the objective witness in himself, 
inasmuch as he experiences in his soul the power of the truth attested by 
God; yet τὴν μαρτυρίαν must not here be understood —as in ver. 11 — of this 
operation itself (contrary to Diisterdieck). In the interpretation, ‘he ac- 
cepts the witness,” — for which, corresponding to the ἔχει, it should at least 
be put, “he has accepted it,” — the preposition ἐν does not receive due justice. 
—In the following negative sentence, by which the thought expressed is 
strengthened and extended, we must supply with τῷ Θεῷ (instead of which 
τῷ vid is not to be read), “7 μεμαρτυρηκότι.᾽" — ψευστὴν πεποίηκεν αὐτόν, See chap. 
i. 10. In his unbelief, the witness of God is regarded by him as a lie, and 
God, who has given it, therefore as a liar.— This thought is confirmed by 
the following words: “for he believeth not (has not become a believer) in the 
record which God has given (as a permanent record) of His Son.” — With the 
participle πιστεύων, which describes a general class (not a single particular 
individual), μῇ is used; but with the finite verb πεπίστευκεν it is οὐ, because 
thereby the πιστεύειν of those that belong to that class is exactly and directly 
denied (comp. chap. ii. 4, iii. 10, 14, iv. 8).? 

Ver. 11 states in what way that witness of God shows itself as internal 
to the believer; to him who, by believing, has the objective witness of God 
in himself, it is no longer purely objective, but he experiences it in himself 
as a divine power, or as the ζωὴ αἰώνιος which God has given him.* Hence 


1 Liicke erroneously thinks that with the 
reading ἣν there results only an imperfect 
sense, when he says, ‘“‘the witness of God, 
which He has testified, consists—in what?” 
This appearance of incompleteness disappears, 
however, as soon as αὕτη is referred to the 
preceding. 

2 It is different in John iii. 18, where ore 
μὴ πεπίστευκεν follows ὃ μὴ πιστεύων, but as 
the reason for ἤδη κέκριται, and where, there- 
fore, it is considered as the reason of the con- 


demnation operating in the mind of the judge; 
differently Winer, p. 441 ff. [E. T., 474]. The 
distinction lies in this, that by Wevorny πεποίη- 
κεν αὐτόν it is an act of the subject, but by 
κέκριται the action of the judge (i.e., of God), 
that is indicated. 

8 According to Braune, by ὅτι the import 
of the record is meant to be stated; but then 
John would be speaking of a different record 
from that which he mentioned before. 


614 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


the apostle says: “And this is the record, ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ 
Θεός.᾽᾽ With ἡμῖν, τοὶς πεπιστευκόσιν is to be mentally supplied. — ζωὴ αἰώνιος 
is not “the hope of eternal life” (Bede: dedit nobis vitam aeternam, sed adhuc 
in terra peregrinantibus IN SPE, quam daturus est in coelis ad se pervenientibus 
IN RE), but it is this itself, the divine life, of which the believer is even here 
a partaker; what the believer hopes for, that he has already. — ζωὴν αἰώνιον, 
as the principal idea, is put first. — ἔδωκεν means, “he gave ;” it is not = pro- 
misit (Socinus), nor does it express merely the jirmitatem et certitudinem promissi- 
onis divinae (a Lapide). — Myrberg incorrectly finds the import of the μαρτυρία 
of God stated in ὅτι, «.7.4., which is in opposition to the context. The second 
part of the verse, καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, Which is not dependent on 
ὅτι (Baumgarten-Crusius), but forms a co-ordinate principal clause, gives a 
further explanation in regard to ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Several commentators find this 
thought expressed in these words, that we possess the ζωὴ αἰών. in the Son, 1.6.» 
in fellowship with the Son: but this the words do not say; they rather state 
where the ζωὴ aiédv., which God gave to believers, had its original place, 
namely, in the Son; comp. John i. 4. Frommann (p. 405): ‘the eternal 
life of which the Christian is by faith a partaker is one with the life that 
dwells in Christ” (so also Diisterdieck, etc.). Braune incorrectly separates 
αὕτη from ἡ ζωῆ, as he puts ἐστίν between them in the thought, and refers αὕτη 
to the idea αἰώνιος : “and this . . . namely, αἰώνιος . . . is the life,” etc. 

Ver. 12 states the inference from the immediately preceding thought. 
If the ζωῇ is originally in the Son, then he who has the Son has with him 
also the (a7. With ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱόν, comp. chap. ii. 25. Changing and 
weakening the sense, Grotius puts for τὸν υἱόν: verba illa quae Pater Filio 
mandavit; even ἔχει τὴν ζωῆν he erroneously explains by jus certum ad vitam 
aeternam. Whilst John in the first clause says simply τὸν υἱόν, in the second 
he adds τοῦ Θεοῦ; on this Bengel remarks: habet versus duo cola; in privre 
non additur Det, nam fideles norunt Filium ; in altero additur, ut demum sciant 
Jideles, quanti sit, non habere. 

Ver. 13. Many commentators (Lorinus, Spener, Bengel, Rickli, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Liicke, Sander, Diisterdieck, Braune) make the conclusion 
of the Epistle begin with this verse (“a sort of concluding section,” Ebrard), 
referring ταῦτα to the whole Epistle. This, however, is incorrect. That 
this verse also belongs to the last leading section beginning at iii. 23, is 
shown not only by the idea ζωὴν αἰώνιον, which refers to what immediately 
precedes, but also by the idea πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Which refers 
back to iii. 23; besides, it is to be observed that the following sentences, 
vv. 14 and 13, correspond to the thought with which the preceding leading 
section ended; comp. iii. 21,22. Accordingly, ταῦτα is not to be referred to 
the whole Epistle, but to the last section, vy. 6-12 (Briickner), which reaches 
its climax in the thought, ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει τὴν ζωήν ; comp. ii. 1, 21, 26. In 
the words ἕνα εἰδῆτε, ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, John states the object for which he 
wrote that which is contained in the foregoing. The certainty of the life 
which is bestowed on him is so much the more necessary to the Christian’s 
mind, as this is sometimes hidden from him in the struggles of life —the 
life is there, but at times like a hidden treasure. That the possession of 


CHAP. V. 13. δ 615 


this life, however, is conditioned by faith, the apostle brings out especially 
by an additional clause, which indeed runs differently in the different codices 
(see the critical remarks), but in its different forms expresses essentially the 
same thought; according to the probable reading, it is connected with ὑμῖν; 
according to A, however, with ἔχετε. The second clause in the Rece., καὶ iva 
πιστεύητε εἰς Td ὄνομα τοὺ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, indicates as the second object the adher- 
ence to faith; with the phrase, πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, comp. chap. 111. 23. 

Ver 14, as the preliminary καὶ shows, is not the beginning of a new sec- 
tion (contrary to De Wette); but the thought expressed here is in close 
connection with the foregoing, inasmuch as the παῤῥησία is an essential ele- 
ment of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος. As in chap. iii. 21, 22, so here also, παῤῥησία is the 
confidence which the believer experiences in the certainty that his prayer is 
heard. —airn ἐστὶν ἡ παῤῥησία does not mean, “hence arises also a happy 
spirit” (Ziegler), but “herein consists the confidence” (De Wette). — jv ἔχομεν 
πρὸς αὐτόν]. αὐτόν does not refer to the Son, but to God; though God is not 
previously mentioned as the subject, yet He is nevertheless considered as 
the principal subject, as the One who gives life through the Son. —ér]. 
Liicke (with whom Ebrard agrees, with the incorrect remark that ὅτι does not 
depend on αὕτη, but simply on παῤῥησία) supplies before ὅτι : “that we have 
the confidence; ” but the concise thought of the apostle is thereby weakened, 
and besides the παῤῥησία is itself this confidence (Diisterdieck). — ἐάν τι αἰτώ- 
μεθα κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ]. By means of κατὰ τ. θέλ. αὐτοῦ, i.e., τοῦ Θεοῦ, prayer 
is more eee defined as to its substance and character. — ἀκούει ἡμῶν]. 
In chap. iii. 22 it is put instead of this, λαμβάνομεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ. --- ἀκούειν includes 
the idea of granting, which, however, is not brought definitely out until the 
following verse. 

Ver. 15. καὶ ἐὰν οἴδαμεν. By the indicative after ἐάν (see on this, Winer, 
Ρ. 277 [E. T., 295]; Al. Buttmann, p. 191 ff. [E. T., 223]) this knowledge 
is emphasized as something undoubtedly belonging to the believer; differ- 
ently ver. 16: ἐών τις ἴδῃ. -- ὅτι ἀκούει ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐὰν (dv) αἰτώμεθα]. Resumption of 
what was previously stated. — οἴδαμεν, ὅτι, x.7.4 ]. In the certainty that God 
hears us lies also the certainty, ὅτι ἔχομεν τὰ αἰτήματα ἃ ἠτῆκαμεν ἀπ᾽ (παρ᾽) αὐτοῦ. 
— ἔχομεν is neither = λαμβάνομεν, nor 1s the present put for the future (Grotius); 
the present is rather to be kept in its proper meaning; the believer always 
has that for which he has asked God (κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ) ; he has God, and 
in Him all things. —7rd αἰτήματα are the res petitae (Lorinus).— ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
from its position is not to be connected with ἔχρμεν, but with ἠτήκαμεν ; comp. 
Matt. xx. 20; Acts iii. 2; differently chap. 111. 22: λαμβάνομεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 

Ver. 16. The apostle applies the general res expressed in ver. 15 to 
a particular case, namely, to a prayer for one’s brother when one sees him 
committing sin. — ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ]. By ἐάν with the subjunctive 
the possibility is simply stated. By ἀδελφός we are to understand, according 
to the usus loquendi of the Epistle, not the neighbor in general (Calovius), 
but the Christian brother (αὐτοῦ), not exactly the “regenerate ” (Diisterdieck); 
Ebrard, erroneously: “first of all, members of the Christian Church, yet 
without excluding those who are not Christians.” — ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ 
πρὸς θάνατον]. The phrase ἁμαρτάνειν ἁμαρτίαν is stronger and more ex- 


616 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

pressive than ποιεῖν ἁμαρτίαν. --- The sort of ἁμαρτία is more particularly 
defined by the addition μὴ πρὸς θάνατον. The negative μῇ (instead of which 
οὐ is used in ver. 17) is explained by the fact that the idea is regarded as 
dependent on ἐάν τις ἴδῃ (comp. Winer, p. 442 [E. T., 475]). The apostle 
distinguishes between the ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον and the ἁμαρτία 
πρὸς θάνατον. What sin is to be understood by the latter? The idea 
nin ROM, LXX.: ἁμαρτία θανατηφύρος, is found already in the O. T., Num. 
xviii. 22, whence the Rabbis distinguish between AN MNvM and Xd ANON 
mmn> (Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr.); in accordance with this, as Schoettgen 
also interprets, the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον would be that sin to which the Mosaic 
law assigned the punishment of death, as idolatry, adultery, etc.: but even 
if that Old-Testament definition is the basis of John’s expression, yet it does 
not follow that he used the idea in the same sense; θάνατος may here, as dis- 
tinguished from ζωή (καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν), not mean bodily death. For this 
reason alone, therefore, the explanation of Morus and S. G. Lange is to be 
rejected, according to which that sort of sin is meant which is punished by 
the authorities with death or with other severe punishments (!), even apart 
from the fact that it makes the prayer of the Christian dependent on the 
penal decrees of civil law. But the opinion of Zachariae, Michaelis, and 
Linder (in the Zeitschrift fiir d. luth. Theol. of Rudelbach and Guericke, 
vol. iv., 1862), that here, as in Jas. v. 14 ff., it is those who are in bodily 
sickness that are spoken of, and that such sin is meant as God punishes with’ 
deadly sickness or sudden death, is for the same reason unfounded.1— If 
θάνατος is not bodily death, then by πρὸς θάνατον the period to which the sin 
lasts cannot either be meant. — With reference to the ecclesiastical disci- 
pline exercised in the Church, the older Catholic theologians especially 
understood by the du, mp. θάν., without further comment, all those sins which 
were punished by the punishment of excommunication. But even if the 
Church had always punished in that way the sin which John here has in 
view, yet that expression could not be explained by that practice. — As 
θάνατος is not bodily death, it is only spiritual death or damnation that can be 
meant by it; du. πρὸς θάνατον is therefore the sin which leads to damnation. 
But what sin is this? It is much too general to regard every grievous trans- 
gression as such. As Christ Himself refuses forgiveness absolutely only to 
one sin, the commentators who assent to the above view find themselves 
driven to an arbitrary weakening of πρὸς θάνατον; so Ambrosius (Lib. de 
Poenit.), when he says: quodvis peccatum gravissimum, quod Vix remittitur, ἡ 
and still more strangely, a Lapide: peccatum quodvis gravissimum, quod . . .° 
juxta legem communem per gratiam, quam Deus ORDINARIE dare solet, est quasi 


immedicabile, incorrigibile et insanabile. 


1 Linder, it is true, remarks against this 
that a new section begins with ver. 13, but 
even in that verse ζωή is used in the spiritual 
sense. The above view is also opposed by the 
fact that it assumes in John the opinion that 
deadly sickness or sudden death is always di- 
vine punishment for a special sin, which can 
neither be justified by Acts v. nor by 1 Cor. 


It is more correct, indeed, to regard ° 


xi. 80. The appeal to Jas. v. 14 ff. is so much 
the more inappropriate, as John here in no 
way suggests that he is speaking of those who 
are in bodily sickness. It is therefore quite 
arbitrary for Linder to interpret καὶ δώσει 
αὐτῷ ζωήν: “God will grant to him pardon 
and recovery.” 


CHAP. V. 16. 617 
it as sin which is not repented of, and to find the characteristic of the ἀμ. zp. 
θάν. in the impenitence of the sinner who will give heed to no exhortation 
(Grotius, Socinus, etc.); but even this cannot be the feature which John 
here has specially in view, because at the time of the commitment of a sin 
it cannot be decided whether it will be repented of or not. John must mean 
a ἁμαρτία, which in itself is characterized as a ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον. Many com- 
mentators accordingly fix the meaning of it on a single particular sin; thus 
Tertullian, who understands by it, moechia post baptismum commissa; Bede, 
who, following the precedent of Augustine,! understands by it the peccatum 
invidentiae, quo quis invidet fratri gratiam, virtutem et salutem, but then we do 
not see why John did not specifically and definitely mention this particular 
sin. We might therefore agree with those who take ἁμαρτία here as the 
description of a state, as Bengel, who thus interprets: talis staTus, in quo 
Jides et amor et spes, in summa, vita nova exstincta est ; but this is opposed by 
the apostle’s mode of expression, which plainly refers to a sinful deed, and 
not to a state. Though, on the one hand, a single sin cannot be meant 
(Calvin: non est partialis lapsus, nec praecepti unius transgressio), yet we must 
only think of a whole species of sins, or better, of such sinning as is charac- 
terized not by the object with which it is connected, but by the disposition 
from which it proceeds. For the further definition it is to be observed, as 
Liicke with justice points out, that it can “only be a class of sins of Chris- 
tians, and not of those who are not Christians,” that is spoken of, and that 
“the distinction between the sin unto death, and sin that is not unto death, 
must be capable of being known.” It is true, every sin can be called a 
ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, Inasmuch as it tends in the direction of θάνατος, but every 
sin does not wfallibly lead to θάνατος : so long as along with the ἁμαρτία there 
still exists an ἔχειν τὸν υἱόν (vv. 11 and 12), the sinning Christian is still in 
fellowship with the αἶμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ which cleanses him ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας 
(chap i. 7); and so long as he has a παράκλητος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, namely, Jesus 
Christ the righteous (chap. ii. 1), sin does not deprive him of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, 
and is not therefore ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον; this it only is when it involves 
an actual falling away from Christ; De Wette and Liicke therefore rightly 
say that the sin unto death is the sin by which the Christian falls back 
again from the Christian’s (w7 into the θάνατος (comp. also Hofmann, 
Schrifibew., II. 2, p. 340), only it is not exactly the falling away itself that is 
to be understood, for this is an internal act which, as such, is invisible,? but 
rather the sinful conduct by which the internal loss of life with Christ 
externally operates and reveals itself (so also Braune).® It is incorrect of 


1 Augustine (De Serm. Deiin Monte Matt., idea by “ fidem, quae per dilectionem operatur, 


lib. i. c. 22, § 73) says’ ““ Peccatum fratris ad 
mortem puto esse, cum post agnitionem Dei 
per gratiam. . . . Jesu Christi quisque oppug- 
nat fraternitatem et adversus ipsam gratiam 
. . - invidentiae facibus agitatur.”” Yet Augus- 
tine is not consistent in his interpretation; in 
the Retractations he adds further: ‘‘si in hac 
perversitate finierit vitam;” in his work, De 
Corrept. et Gratia, c. 12, § 35, he explains the 


desercre usgue ad mortem.” 

2 This also contradicts Ebrard’s interpreta- 
tion, according to which the ἀμ. mp. @av. is 
“the act of inward rejection;” although 
Ebrard is correct when he says: “πρὸς θάν. is 
that sort of sinning which has resulted in a 
corruption of the soul, from which the return 
to πίστις and ζωή is no longer possible to him.” 

8 Several commentators, as Calvin, Beza, 


618 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

Diisterdieck (and similarly Ebrard) to understand by the sin unto death the 
antichristian denial that Jesus is the Christ; for if John had meant this, he 
would have expressed it definitely, so much the more as in the Epistle he is 
carrying on a polemic against that antichristianity. Just as little has Myr- 
berg arrived at the correct explanation when on ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον he 
remaiks: varia genera peccatorum, quae mortem in sensu loci nostri adferant, 
vide enumerata, Gal. vy. 18-21; for although Paul says: ὅτι τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες 
βασιλείαν Θεοῦ ob κληρονομῆσουσιν, yet it does not follow from this that no return 
is possible from such sins.—In the face of the apostle’s words the possibility 
of knowing the ἁμαρτάνειν πρὸς θάν. cannot be denied, yet it is difficult to dis- 
tinguish amongst the particular concrete manifestations: but, on the one 
hand, the Christian mind which is fitted for the κρίσις will not decide with- 
out scrupulous examination; and, on the other hand, John himself shows 
by the μή that the decision can at any time be only a subjective one. The 
meaning of the sentence accordingly is: If any man see his brother sin in 
such a way that the sin which he commits does not involve absolute renun- 
ciation of Christ, and therefore does not necessarily bring condemnation 
with it, he shall pray for him.1— airjoe is not to be understood of the united 
prayer of the Church as such (so Neander; Ewald also says: “Christian prayer, 
especially in the consecrated bosom of the Church”), but of every prayer of 
one for another. The future is not exactly used instead of the imperative: 
it rather expresses the certainty that, in the case. stated, the Christian will 
pray, but in this there is certainly involved the injunction actually to do it. 
The substance of the’ prayer is indicated by the following —xai δώσει αὐτῷ 
ζωῆν denotes the result of the prayer; very many, perhaps most commen- 
tators (Socinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, Spener, Liicke, Sander, Erdmann, 
etc.), supply with δώσει as subject ὁ Θεύς or ὁ αἰτούμενος (so also Winer, p. 487 
[E. T., 523]; Al Buttm., p. 116 [E. T., 116, note1]); a similar change of 
subject occurs in Acts viii. 6: but considering the close connection of αἰτήσει 
and δώσει, along with which the similarity of the verbal form is also to be 
noticed, it is preferable, with Jerome, Sander, De Wette-Briickner,? Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Frommann (p. 674), Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Braune, etc., to 
assume the same subject with δώσει as with αἰτῆσει ; then the sense is: he that 
prays gives the ζωῇ, inasmuch as God grants him his prayer. The idea finds 
its explanation in the fact that every sin brings with it a weakening of the 


Calovius, Heumann, Sander, etc., identify this 
sin with the sin against the Holy Ghost in 
' Matt. xii. 81 ff.; certainly the ἁμαρτία meant 
here is not imaginable without a βλασφημία 
τοῦ πνεύματος; and the βλασφημία τ. mv. has 
θάνατος as its reward: but the ideas do not 
quite coincide, for (1) the βλασφημία τ. πν. 
may occur even on the part of non-Christians, 
but it is the sin of the Christian that is spoken 
of here; and (2) the former is completed in 
words (εἰπεῖν κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τ. ay.), but 
the ἅμ. mp. θάν. can only consist in further 
action. 

1 When Linder (as above quoted) remarks 


against this explanation, that ‘“‘the decision 
whether a sin is a au, mp. 6. or not is objectively 
made by God Himself, and must be cognizable 
in some outward manifestation,” we may reply 
that even the occurrence of bodily death can- 
not be regarded as a certain proof; for even 
though God sometimes ordains it as a punish- 
ment of the sinner, yet it occurs also when it 
is not to be concluded that there is special 
guilt. 

2 Briickner seems, however, to be doubtful, 
as he remarks: ‘‘if there were only an αὐτός, 
or a similar indication!” 


CHAP. V. 17. 619 
ζωῇ ; in order that he that sins may not remain in this want, he requires a new 
infusion of life, and this is procured for him by the prayer of his believing 
brother. In addition to this, of course, the confession of his sin, with trust in 
the cleansing power of the blood of Christ (comp. chap. i. 7), is necessary on 
his part; but it is just in this that the blessing of the prayer consists, that he 
receives as the result of it the needful inclination for this.1— τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι 
μὴ πρὸς θάνατον] apposition to αὐτῷ; the plural serves only for generalization 
(De Wette, Winer, etc.); Bornemann (Bibi. Studien der stichs. Geistlichen, I. 
p- 71; and Alex. Buttm., p. 156 [E. T., 179]) erroneously explains τοῖς duap- 
τάνουσι as the dative commodi, referring αὐτῷ to the person that prays himself. 
By the following words, ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, the apostle brings out that 
there is really a sin unto death, with which he connects the observation, od 
περὶ ἐκείνης λέγω iva ἐρωτῆσῃ. Most commentators find in this a prohibition, 
even though mildly expressed, of prayer in reference to the sin unto death; 
but this is not contained here, as Grotius, Hornejus, Besser, Myrberg, Ebrard, 
Brickner, ete., rightly observe; for the negative οὐ does not belong to épw- 
thon, but to λέγω; if the negative was to be referred to the former, it would 
have liad to be μῆ. The sense is: My injunction does not mean (οὐ λέγω) 
that a man is to offer prayer (iva ἐρωτῆσῃ) in reference to (περί) the sin πρὸς 
6avarov.2 — The words do not express more than this, although it is admitted 
that in the emphasizing of οὐ λέγω a warning is indicated (similarly Braune): 
John does not want to make a duty of a prayer, to which the certain assur- 
ance of being granted is wanting; he therefore adds this limitation to his 
exhortation to prayer (so also Besser): a formal prohibition would only be 
appropriate if the ἁμαρτάνειν mp. dav, were always cognizable as such. It is 
observable that John does not say here αἰτήσῃ, but ἐρωτήσῃ; ἐρωτᾷν (lit. “to. 
ask”), is a milder idea than αἰτεῖν (lit. “to demand”); the apostle warns 
against the ἐρωτᾷν, and, of course, much more against the more urgent aireiv. 

Ver. 17. To guard against indifference to transgressions occurring in 
the Christian’s life, the apostle continues: πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστί. ---- ἀδικία is 
not synonymous with ἀνομία, chap. iii. 4; for whilst ἀνομία there serves to 
strengthen the idea ἁμαρτία, the idea ἀδικία is here more particularly defined 
and strengthened by ἁμαρτία; ἀδικία, namely, is the character of every offence 
against that which is right, “every breach of duty” (Meyer). Though, on 
the one hand, every such transgression is sin; yet, on the other hand, it 
must be maintained that every sin does not lead to death; hence καὶ ἔστιν 
ἁμαρτία ob πρὸς θάνατον: καί is not adversative, but serves to emphasize the 


1 It is to weaken the thought of the apostle 
if, with Rickli, we find the blessing of the 
prayer only in this, that he who prays is him- 
self led thereby to a right relation toward his 
brother. According to the apostle’s view, the 
prayer rather brings blessing directly to the 
brother, for as James (v.16) says: πολὺ ἐσχύει 
δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη. 

2 As Neander thinks that it is only Church 
prayer that is spoken of here, he interprets: 
‘one who sins πρὸς θανατον is not to be in- 


cluded in the united prayer of the Church for 
sinners in general, so that he may not be con- 
firmed in his sin and be led to a false trust in 
the prayer of others;’’ but John in no way 
indicates that he is speaking only of Church 
prayer. 

8 Braune unsuitably says that “ αἰτεῖν im- 
plies conversation; ἐρωτᾷν, on the other hand, 
equalization of him who prays with him whom 
he addresses.” 


620 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


thought. — οὐ πρὸς θάνατον does not belong to ἐστιν (Luther: “some sin is not 
to death”), but to ἁμαρτία : “ there is sin not unto death.” 

Ver. 18, it is true, is closely connected with the foregoing, but at the 
same time forms the commencement of the conclusion of the Epistle, which 
is indicated as such by the successive thrice-repeated οἴδαμεν (Ebrard), and 
in which the apostle describes the position of believers in brief vigorous 
strokes. — As in vv. 16 and 17 it was admitted that even in Christians ἀδικία, 
and hence ἁμαρτία, still exists, the apostle finds himself compelled to repeat, 
confirmingly, what was said in chap. iii. 6-10, as a truth known to Chris- 
tians (οἴδαμεν, in which there does not lie “an appeal to the fact that he has 
already said it,” Ebrard), in order that it may be thoroughly impressed on 
them that all sin is in the sharpest antagonism to their essential principle 
of life. — οἴδαμεν, ὅτι πᾶς γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει]. This appears 
to be in contradiction with what is previously admitted; John does not 
solve the contradiction; many commentators seek to do so by supplying 
πρὸς θάνατον as a more particular definition of οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, or by interpreting 
it of remaining in sin: both are, however, arbitrary; the solution lies rather 
in the fact that the apostle wants simply to emphasize the antagonism 
between being born of God, and sinning. Though sin is still found in the 
life of the believer, who as such is γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, yet it is neverthe- 
less foreign to him, opposed to his nature, and in the strength of his faith 
he is ever becoming more and more free from it.1— ἀλλ᾽ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ 
Θεοὺ τηρεὶ ἑαυτόν]. This second clause is not dependent on ὅτι, but is to be 
regarded as an independent sentence (Diisterdieck, Braune). Bengel 
erroneously states the difference between the form ὁ γεννηθείς and the 
preceding ὁ yeyevvyuévoc thus: Praeteritum grandius quiddam sonat, quam 
aoristus: non modo qui magnum in regeneratione gradum assecutus, sed quilibet, 
qui regenitus est, servat se, it is rather the same distinction that occurs here 
as that by which these two verbal forms are generally distinguished; 6 
apvintete is: “he who was born,” regarded as an historical fact.—In 1 Tim. 
vy. 22, éyvov, and in Jas. i. 27, ἄσπιλον, are put with τηρεῖ ἑαυτόν as more 
particular definition. It is, however, unnecessary to supply such a predicate 
(De Wette) ; τηρεὶ ἑαυτόν denotes the self-preservation of the believer in his 
proper character (so also Braune);? the more particular definition results 
from the following: καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ is the result of the rypei 
ἑαυτόν; Ebrard, incorrectly: “Satan dare not touch him; God does not 
permit it;” the present simply expresses the fact, but this, according to 
the context, is the case, because the Devil is prevented from ἅπτεσθαι by the 
τηρεὶν ἑαυτόν οἵ him who is born of God. With ὁ πονηρός, comp. chap. i. 13. 
By ἅπτεσθαι we are to understand touching in order to do harm; Ps. ev. 15, 
LXX. (see Raphelii, Annot. ex Polybio). Compare Jas. iv. 7: φεύξεται ἀφ' 


1 It needs no proof, that the thought of the 2 It is less suitable to explain τηρεῖν ἑαυτόν 
apostle is perverted by the explanation of De here, with Ebrard -- τηρεῖσθαι, “ to be on guard, 
Wette: ‘‘ the apostle expresses his confidence to take care;” for, in the first place, it is op- 
that the occurrence of the sin unto death, and posed to the wsws loguendi of the N. T. to as- 
of sin in general, cannot often (!) take place in sign this meaning to the word; and, secondly, 
the Christian Church.” it is not expressive enough for the context. 


CHAP. V. 19, 20. 621 


ὑμῶν. It is true the believer is still tempted by the Devil (comp. 1 Pet. v. 
8, etc.), just as sinful desires still arise in him; but being in his most inner 
nature redeemed from the fellowship of sin, he suffers from these tempta- 
tions no injury to the life that has come to him from God: in the πανοπλία 
τοῦ Θεοῦ he is protected against all the pedodeia τοῦ διαβόλου (Eph. vi. 
Li.) 

Ver. 19 marks the antithesis between believers as being born of God, 
and the κόσμος, as belonging in its whole extent (ὅλος) to the πονηρός; and 
this is done by the apostle vindicating for himself and his readers — who 
are united with him in faith —the εἷναι é τοῦ Θεοῦ, --- ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσμεν finds 
its explanation in the preceding: ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοὺ Θεοῦ. Socinus, incorrectly: 
a Deo pendemus.—kai ὁ κόσμος ὅλος, x.t.A., probably as an independent 
sentence, not depending on ὅτι (Diisterdieck). καί is not = dé; it is just the 
connecting καί that brings out the antithesis which exists between the two 
parts of the verse, still more clearly than if this had been done by an 
adversative particle. ὁ κόσμος is here used in the ethical meaning of the 
word, which is peculiar to John. —év τῷ πονηρῷ keira]. τῷ πονηρῷ is not 
neuter (Socinus, Episcopius, Rickli, Erdmann), but masculine, as is clear 
both from 6 πονηρός in ver. 18, as also from the antithesis to ὁ Θεός. ---- By the 
preceding ἐκ τ. Θεοῦ and Luther’s translation of Isa. xlvi. 8, some commen- 
tators have been led erroneously to refer the expression év ... κεῖται to the 
relation of the child to its mother (Spener: “as a child in its mother’s 
womb”); by ἐν it is expressed that the κόσμος is, as it were, surrounded by 
the Devil, ie., is quite in his power; κεῖται, stronger than ἐστί, indicates, if 
not, as Liicke thinks, the permanent, yet certainly the passive state (so also 
Braune), and hence the complete domination of the Devil, which is in 
the most pronounced contrast with the preceding: καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται 
αὐτοῦ. , 

Ver. 20. In conclusion, the apostle indicates whence the εἶναι ἐν τῷ Θεῷ 
(the result of the εἰναι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ) has come to him and his readers; and he 
does this by expressing it through οἴδαμεν as the substance of their Christian 
colisciousness. — οἴδαμεν δέ, ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ He]. The conditioning cause 
of the former is the coming of the Son of God. —The particle δέ is here 
used to indicate the antithesis to the immediately preceding thought ; 
Briickner has with justice decided in favor of this reading (contrary to καὶ 
οἴδαμεν; see the critical notes). — xe is not = adest (Bengel), but “has 
come;” the reference is to the incarnation of the Son of God.—xai 
δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν, iva γινώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν]. Still dependent 
on 67. —The subject οἱ δέδωκεν is not ὁ Θεός (Bengel), but ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, as 
the close connection of this clause with that immediately preceding clearly 
shows; τὸν ἀληθινόν, on the other hand, is not a description of the Son 
(Bengel), but of God. — By διάνοια we are not to understand, with Liicke 
aud De Wette, “knowledge,” or even “insight,” but the capability of knowl- 
edge (Diisterdieck, Ebrard), yet in its living activity, hence “the faculty of 


1 Calvin: ‘* Utut malignus renatum ad pec- quoniam renatus scuto fidei munitus ea repellit 
catum solicitet, tela tamen illius irrita cadunt, et diabolo per tidem resistit.” 


622 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

knowing.” 1— By ἕνα γινώσκομεν, «.7.2., it is neither the purpose, “in order 
that,” nor even the result, “so that,” that is stated, but the object to which 
the διάνοια is directed, and which it attains. We can only regard iva as the 
particle of purpose, if we unjustifiably understand by διάνοια “ the spiritual 
disposition” (contrary to Braune).— The idea γινώσκειν is here used with 
the same force as in chap. ii. 4, 5, where it is similarly connected with ἐν 
αὐτῷ εἶναι. By τὸν ἀληθινόν God is described, in distinction from all idols, 
especially from the idol which the faise teachers made of God, as the true 
God. Calvin: Verum Deum intelligit, non veracem, sed eum qui re vera Deus 
est, ut eum ab idolis omnibus discernat ; comp. John xvii. 3? (similarly Liicke, 
De Wette, Neander, Erdmann, Diisterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, etc.). 
He is the true God, who has sent His Son into the world; the coming of 
Christ has not been ineffectual, but has produced in believers the knowledge 
of God,—a knowledge which is one with being in God. Therefore the 
apostle continues: καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷς. These words are not dependent 
on ὅτι (Vulg.: et simus), but form an independent sentence. The ἐν τῷ 
ἀληθινῷ refers back to τὸν ἀληθινόν ; considering the close connection of the two 
sentences, it must be the same subject, namely God, that is meant by the same 
word (Briickner, Braune); it is arbitrary to understand by τὸν ἀληθινόν God, 
and by τῷ ἀληθινῷ, on the other hand, Christ, and it is, moreover, forbidden 
by the context, in accordance with which the καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ states the 
consequence of the preceding, namely of the fact that the Son of God has 
come and has given to us the capability of knowing the true God. There- 
fore also. the following words, ἐν τῷ vid αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, are not to be 
taken as apposition to ἐν τῷ ἀλ. (Weiss), against which even the αὐτοῦ 
testifies, for then it would have to be referred, not to τῷ ἀληθινῷ, but beyond 
it to τὸν ἀληθινόν. The additional clause shows in what the εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ 
has its ground and stability (Briickner, Braune): é is not = per, but 
indicates, as generally in the formula ἐν ‘Io. Χριστῷ, the relationship of 
intimate fellowship: the believer is in God, inasmuch as he is in Christ. — 
Before the last warning, connected with this (ver. 21), the apostle expres- 
sively concludes with the statement: οὐτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 
As is well known, views have differed from old times about the meaning of 
οὗτος. While the Arians understand οὗτος of God, the orthodox refer it to 
the immediately preceding ἐν τῷ vid ’I. Xp., and use this passage as a proof 
of the divinity of the Son. This interpretation remained the prevailing 
one in the Church, even after Erasmus had remarked: “hic est verus Deus” 
referri potest ad Deum verum Patrem qui praecessit; and against this the 
Socinians, and then Grotius, Wetstein, the English Aunti-trinitarians, and 


1 Tt is quite arbitrary, with Semler, to in- 
terpret the idea διάνοια = μετάνοια Kai πίστις. 
Paulus lays a special emphasis on διά : **think- 
ing through (out) in contrast to a vague 
acceptance and thoughtless belief” (!). 

2 Baumgarten-Crusius thinks that ἀληθ, 
means more here than in John xvii. 3, namely, 
**he who gives a satisfaction, in quo uno ac- 
quiescendum est ;”” butif this were really con- 


tained in the idea here, that would be the case 
in John xvii. 3 also. 

3 This explanation is so much the more jus- 
tifiable, as it is to be expected from John, that 
at the close of his Epistle he would express in 
brief language the highest thing that can be 
said of the life of the believer, and this is the 
εἶναι ἐν τῷ Θεῷ (τῷ ἀληθινῷ). 


CHAP. V. 20. 623 
the German Rationalists followed the opposite view. It is not to be denied, 
that on both sides the different dogmatic interests did not remain without 
influence on the interpretation, until in more recent times a more unbiassed 
consideration has led the way. Among the latest commentators, Rickli, 
Liicke, De Wette, Neander, Gerlach, Frommann, Diusterdieck, Erdmann, 
Myrberg, even Briickner and Braune (who, however, leave room for doubt), 
similarly Hofmann (Schrifibew., second edition, I., p. 146), Winer (p. 148 
[E. T., 157]), and Al. Buttmann (p. 91 [E. T., 104]), have decided in 
' favor of the reference to God; Sander, Besser, Ebrard, Weiss, etc., for the 
reference to the Son. The dispute cannot be settled on grammatical lines, 
for οὗτος can be referred both to τὸν ἀληθινόν ὃ and also to τῷ vid. The addition 
καὶ ζωῇ αἰώνιος, seems to support the latter reference; for Christ, in the Gospel 
of John, calls Himself precisely 7 ζωή, and also in the beginning of this 
Epistle it is the Son of God that is to be understood by 7 ζωῆ and ἡ ζωὴ ἡ 
αἰώνιος. The former reference, on the other hand, is supported by the 
expression: ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεός; for, in the first place, it is moré natural to 
understand here the same subject as is previously designated by ὁ ἀληθινός, 
than any other; and, in the second place, the Father and the Son, God and 
Jesus Christ, are always so definitely distinguished throughout the whole 
Epistle, that it would be strange if, at the close of it, and, moreover, just 
after both subjects have been similarly distinguished immediately before, 
Christ — without further explanation, too — should be described as ὁ ἀληθινὸς 
Θεός, especially as this designation is never ascribed to the Son in the 
writings of John, definitely though the divinity of the Son is taught in 
them.? To this it may be added, that, after John has brought out as 
the peculiar characteristic of the Christian’s life, of which he partakes in the 
Son of God, the εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, the clause in question has its right 
meaning only if it states who that ἀληθινός is, namely that he is the ἀληθινὸς 
Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Now, though elsewhere it is only Christ that is called 
exactly ἡ ζωή, yet He has the ¢w7—according to His own words, John v. 26 
—only from the Father, who originally has the life in Himself (ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει 
ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ), and may therefore be called ζωὴ αἰώνιος no less than the Son. 
Besides, it is to be observed that ζωὴ αἰών. is here used without the article, 
so that the expression comes under the same category as the expressions: 
ὁ Θεός ἐστι φῶς (i. 5), ἀγάπη (iv. 16), πνεῦμα (Gospel of John iv. 24).— The 
objection that “it would be a feeble repetition, after the Father had twice 
been called ὁ ἀληθινός, again to say: this is the ἀληθινὸς Θεός" (Ebrard, 


1 It lies in the very nature of the case, that 
οὗτος may refer to the principal subject, nay, 
that this is the reference most suitable to the 
word: comp. 1 John ii. 22; 2 John 7; Acts iv. 
11, vii. 19. Calvin’s rule, which Sander re- 
peats, is erroneous: “ Pron. demonstr. οὗτος 
ordinarie, nisi evidenter textus aliud requirat, 
immediate antecedens nomen respicit ac de- 
monstrat.”’ 

2 Itis only through a superficial considera- 
tion, that, for the refutation of this assertion, 


appeal can be made to John i. 1, xx. 28, and 
the passages in the Apocalypse in which the 
predicate ἀληθινός is ascribed to Christ. — How 
little care is sometimes exercised in the proof 
of the truth that what is stated by John of 
Jesus Christ really proclaims Him as the true 
God, is shown, amongst others, by Schulze, in 
the way in which he appeals on behalf of this 
to John xvii. 23 and xiv. 20; since it would 
follow from this, that even the disciples of 
Jesus could be described as the true God. 


624 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


similarly Weiss; also Schulze, Menschensohn, etc., p. 263),} is the less valid, 
as the apostle has already in view the warning of ver. 21, and by ἐν τῷ υἱῷ 
αὐτοῦ Ἶ. Xp., it is indicated that He alone is the true God, with whom we are 
in fellowship in Christ: it is only the Father of Jesus Christ that is the 
true God.—The connection of the words, καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. as a second 
predicate, with οὗτος, has appeared a difficulty to many commentators. 
Socinus wanted to take οὖτος = τοῦτο, with reference to the whole preceding 
thought, and then he paraphrases τοῦτο by ἐν τούτῳ and interprets: in eo, quod 
diximus, est ille verus Deus et vita aeterna; nam quatenus quis habet et cognoscit 
Christi Patrem et ipsum Christum, habet et illum verum Deum et aeternam vitam ; 
similarly Ewald, when he paraphrases: “this, both these things together, 
that we know and that we are all this, this is the true God and eternal life.” 
The arbitrariness of this explanation is self-evident. Others, as Clarke, 
Benson, Liicke (in his first edition), supply before ζωὴ αἰών. an αὕτη ἐστίν out 
of οὐτός ἐστιν, referring αὕτη either to ὁ υἱός or to the idea εἷναι ἐν τῶ ἀληθ. 
Liicke has rightly withdrawn this explanation in his second edition, as 
unwarrantable, and correctly says: “ καὶ ζωὴ αἰών. can certainly not be gram- 
matically connected directly with otroc.” Liicke, however, thinks that there 
is an ellipsis in the expression, and that it is to be interpreted: “this... the 
true God is eternal life, which can either be understood of the fact that God 
is the cause and source of eternal life, or thus: His fellowship is eternal life.” 
But why could not John have described by ζωὴ αἰών. the substantial character 
of the divine nature? If God has ζωή in Himself (John vy. 26), namely the 
ζωῇ which He has given to the Son, and which believers possess through 
the Son (John v. 24), then God in His very nature is (w7, and ζωὴ αἰώνιος too. 
As John mentions this as the characteristic of God’s nature, there certainly 
lies in this the indication that God is the source of life for us. 

Ver. 21. If believers have come to the true God through Christ, they 
have to take care that they do not lose this eternal and highest good by 
giving themselves up to any vain idol. In this train of thought John 
closes his Epistle with the short exhortation, so impressive, however, in its 
brevity : rexvia φυλάξετε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων. In the address rexvia we may 
see the depth of the feeling with which John utters these concluding words. 
--- εἴδωλα are properly images; this signification is retained here by many 
commentators (Tertullian, Oecumenius, Lyranus, Lorinus, Salmeron, Liicke, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann, Diisterdieck, etc.), whilst some of them, 
however, extend the idea to that of “false, heathen gods;’’ others, again, 
refer the expression to the arbitrary self-made representations of God which 
the false teachers had,—thus Bede, Rickli, Sander, Thiersch (Versuch zur 
Herstellung, p. 241), etc.; others combine both views, and understand by 
εἰδωλα here all sorts of images which men arbitrarily make for themselves of 
God (Ebrard, Braune). If the warning is not to be regarded as a detached 
appendix, foreign to the contents of the Epistle, we cannot rest satisfied 


1 Briickner and Braune also consider the is here added to ἀληθινός, and the idea ζωὴ 
“tautology ”’ at least as something not quite αἰώνιος is directly connected with the idea ὁ 
out of the question; but a real tautology is ἀληθινὸς Θεός. 
here so far from being the case, that ““ Θεός ᾿᾿ 


CHAP. V. 21. 625 


with the first interpretation. As the apostle, just in the antithesis to the 
false teachers, who belong to the xéduoc, has so decidedly referred to 
the ἀληθινὸς Θεός, he certainly has in view in this warning, if not altogether, 
yet principally, the untrue mental images of those teachers.! It is only if 
so taken, that the warning to keep themselves from idols forms the appro- 
priate conclusion of the whole Epistle. 


1 That the apostle here also means the res __ able, as the foregoing contains no reference to 
mundariae, inasmuch as man is attached to them. 
them (Myrberg), is so much the more improb- 


THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF THE 
APOSTLE JOHN. 


LNT ROD ΠΣ ΝΥ: 


SEC. 1.— GENUINENESS. 


Tue testimony of the ancient Church is not very certain. The first 
mention of the Second Epistle is found in Clemens Alex. and Irenaeus. 
The former calls the First Epistle the greater (Strom. ii. 15, ed. Potter), and 
says in the Adumbrat.: secunda Joannis epistola, quae ad virgines scripta est, 
simplicissima est; scripta vero est ad quandam Babyloniam Electam nomine. 
Trenaeus (Adv. Haer., i. 163) quotes the passage 2 John 11, with the words: 
᾿Ιωάννης, ὁ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῆς, ἐπέτεινε τὴν καταδίκην αὐτῶν, μηδὲ χαίρειν αὐτοὶς ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν 
λέγεσθαι βουληθείς " ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτοῖς, φησί, χαίρειν, x.7.A.; he further adduces 
(ili. 16, 8) the passage 2 John 7, 8, but by mistake, as a passage of the First 
Epistle. From this it follows, that at the time of these Fathers the Second 
Epistle was not merely known in the Church, but was also received 
as an Epistle of the Apostle John. If the remark of Eusebius (H. L., vi. 14), 
that Clemens Alex. commented on all the Catholic Epistles, be correct, then 
the Third Epistle was known to him also; according to the statement of 
Cassiodorus, however (comp. my Commentary on Second Peter, Introd., § 2, 
p- 291 ff.), this is at least uncertain. — Origen likewise knew several 
Epistles of John; for in the Eighth Homily on Joshua he says, addit et 
Joannes tuba canere per EPISTOLAS Β0ΑΒ: yet he did not express himself 
quite certainly about the apostolic origin of the Second and Third Epistles, 
as is seen from his words in Euseb. (H. E., vi. 25): Ἰωάννης... καταλέλοιπε 
δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὴν πάνυ ὀλίγων στίχων " Eotw δὲ καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην. ἐπεὶ ob πάντες 
φασὶ γνησίους εἶναι ταῦτας ; that the canonicity of these Epistles was doubted, is 
not contained in these words. — His disciple Dionysius Alex., in his polemic 
against the genuineness of the Apocalypse, according to Eusebius (1. E., 


111. 25), appealed not only to the First, but also to the Second and Third 
627 


628 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. 


Epistles of John. His words are: ὁ δὲ εὐαγγελιστὴς οὐδὲ τῆς καθολικῆς προέγραψεν 
ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ὄνομα . . ., ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐν TH δευτέρᾳ φερομένῃ ᾿Ιωάννου καὶ τρίτῃ .. ., ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης 
ὀνομαστὶ πρόκειτα. According to Ebrard, in the word φερομένη a doubt is 
meant to be expressed as to the apostolic authorship of the two Epistles: 
this, however, is erroneous; φερομένη is only added because the Epistles were 
accepted as apostolic, without bearing the name of the Apostle John, as even 
Eusebius (H. E., iii. 25) calls the First Epistle τὴν φερομένην ᾿Ιωάννου προτέραν, 
although he was convinced of its composition by the apostle (Diisterdieck) ; 
and, besides, how could Dionysius have appealed to those two Epistles if he 
had doubted their apostolic origin ?— The Epistles are nowhere mentioned 
by Tertullian and Cyprian; but that the Second Epistle at least was known 
in the North African Church at the time of the latter as a canonical writing, 
is clear from the fact that, at a synod held at Carthage on the subject 
of the baptism of heretics, the bishop Aurelius appealed to the passage 
2 John 10. — The Peshito originally contained of the Catholic Epistles only 
the Epistle of James, First Peter, and First John; the Syrian Ephraem, 
on the other hand, quotes the Second and Third of John as well as the rest 
of the Catholic Epistles. — The testimony of the Muratorian Fragment is 
not quite certain; after a passage is quoted in it from the First Epistle, it 
is stated, after the mention of some spurious writings: epistola sane Jude et 
superscriptio Joannis duas in catholica habentur, and then, ut (or et) sapientia 
ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta. It is possible that by duas 
(duae) the First and Second Epistles are meant; yet it is more probable 
that he understood by it the Second and Third Epistles (Diisterdieck, 
Ebrard, Braune: comp. also Laurentius, Neutest. Studien, p. 205). From 
the following words: ut (or et) sapientia, etc., it is not to be inferred, with 
Diisterdieck, that the author regarded the two Epistles as spurious. — Euse- 
bius (H. E., iii. 25) says: τῶν δ᾽ ἀντιλεγομένων... 7 ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη 
Ἰωάννου, εἴτε τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ τυγχάνουσαι, εἴτε τοῦ ἑτέρου ὁμωνύμου ἐκείνῳ; he there- 
fore reckoned them among the first class of the Antilegomenoi (comp. 
Guericke, p. 606 ff.), and thereby proves that their canonical authority was 
not uncontested; but by the addition εἴτε, «.7.4., by which he does not want 
to confirm the doubt as to their canonicity, he expresses the uncertainty 
whether the Epistles were composed by John or by another of the same 
name, namely, the Presbyter John. In the Antioch school they were re- 
fused acceptance; Theodosius Mops. is said to have rejected them on the 
testimony of Leontius Byz.; Theodoret does not mention them; and in 
the Homily on Matt. xxi. 23, ascribed to Chrysostom, it is said, τὴν δευτέραν 
καὶ τρίτην οἱ πατέρες ἁποκανονίζουσι. For the rest, after the time of Eusebius 


INTRODUCTION. * 629 


their canonicity was undisputed; but that doubts still obtained in regard to 
their apostolic origin, is proved by Jerome, who, in his Catal. Script. Eccl., 
chap. 9, s.v. Papias, says: scripsit Joannes et unam epistolam, quae ab universis 
ecclesiasticis et eruditis viris probatur ; reliquae autem duae, quarum principium 
SENIOR . . . JOANNIS PRESBYTERI asseruntur; and in chap. 18 calls this 
view an opinio, quam a plerisque retulimus traditam. The, generally speaking, 
infrequent quotation of these Epistles, as well as the hesitation in the decision 
as to their canonicity and apostolicity, are easily explained, partly by their 
character, partly by the designation of the author (ὁ πρεσϑύτερος) which is pre- 
fixed. From the fact, however, that the oldest authorities, Clemens Alex. and 
Irenaeus, quite unhesitatingly cite them, at least the Second Epistle, as writ- 
ings of the Apostle John, it may be concluded that in the most ancient tradi- 
tion they were regarded as apostolical Epistles, and that it was only at a later 
date that they were ascribed by many, perhaps only on account of the super- 
scription, to the Presbyter John, whom Papias (Euseb. iii. 39) calls a μαθητὴς 
τοῦ κυρίου, but definitely distinguishes from the Apostle John. In the Middle 
Ages the authorship of the Apostle John was not disputed. Erasmus first 
again regarded the Presbyter John as the author of the Epistles; the same 
view was afterwards expressed and defended by Grotius, J. D. Beck (Observ. 
Crit.-Exeget., Specim. I.), Fritzsche (“ Bemerkk. iiber die Br. Joh.,” in Henke’s 
Museum fiir Religionswissenschaft, iii. part 1), Ammon (Leben Jesu, i. p. 45 ff.), 
and others. Almost all modern commentators and critics (Liicke, De Wette, 
Briickner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Ewald,! Bleek, Braune), on the 
other hand, have with more or less confidence decided in favor of their apos- 
tolic authorship; against which Ebrard again ascribes them to the Presbyter 
John. It is extraordinary, that the same reasons are alleged for both views; 
namely, (1) the character of the style, (2) the self-designation of the author 
by ὁ πρεσβύτερος, and (3) the connection with Diotrephes. (1) As far as 
the style is concerned, the Second Epistle has unmistakably a pronounced 
Johannean impress. This is less the case with the Third Epistle; yet even 
this, which at any rate has the same author as the Second Epistle, bears in 
itself, in particular expressions and ideas, traces of the same peculiarity 
(comp. Liicke, Braune, Diisterdieck). According to Ebrard, the correspond- 
ences are to be explained by “allusions and certain reminiscences,” while the 
peculiar style of the author of the two Epistles appears in the section 


1 According to Ewald’s idea (Gesch. Jar., only these two have been accidentally pre- 
vii. 219), John in Ephesus, in answer to urgent served. Comp. also Ewald’s Joh. Schriften, 
demands, wrote several letters to particular Ρ. 505. 
churches and persons, of which, however, 


080 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. 


vy. 5-10 of the Third Epistle, and this deviates altogether from that of the 
Apostle John. But that the elsewhere well-known diction of John is not 
‘reflected in this section, may be very well explained by the fact that he is 
treating of quite special circumstances, and that, too, only in hints, and with 
the greatest possible brevity; but that in 2 John 5, 12, and 3 John 11, there 
is “an intentional allusion to particular dicta of the First Epistle,” and that 
in 2 John 6, 7, 9, such dicta “are almost exactly quoted,” are assertions 
which cannot be proved, as the agreements may just as well, at least, have 
their origin in the identity of the author. (2) As, according to the distinct 
testimony of Papias (in Euseb., H. E., iii. 99), the existence of a presbyter 
named John, who was a μαθητῆς of the Lord, cannot be doubted, it is natural 
to regard him as the author of the Epistle, who calls himself ὁ πρεσβύτερος. 
But as Papias designates this John as ὁ πρεσβύτερος merely to distinguish 
him from the previously mentioned (Apostle) John, it cannot be inferred 
from his words that “6 πρεσβύτερος " was in itself a name denoting the non- 
apostolic John. If this was not the case, how then could this John venture 
to call himself κατ᾽ ἐξοχῆν “ὁ πρεσβύτερος "2 Ebrard thinks that, as the two 
Johns lived in Ephesus, the non-apostolic John was in his intimate circle 
called “the Presbyter” in distinction from the Apostle, and that “it is easily 
intelligible from this how the Presbyter John would, in his confidential 
private circles, use this designation as a stamped coin;” but, besides, 
Ebrard appeals to the fact that the small filial churches in the neighbor- 
hood of the city, the single members of the presbytery established in the 
mother church, and hence those small churches which had gathered round 
the Kyria and Caius and Diotrephes, had been handed over to the care of 
of the Presbyter John, “so that according to his official position he was ‘the 
Presbyter’ to these churches.” Ebrard thus gives two explanations, of 
which, however, only one could be valid;! moreover, both explanations are 
based on uncertain assumptions. — Liicke and Diisterdieck (similarly Briick- 
ner and Braune) with justice show that the name, ὁ πρεσβύτερος, would not 
have been, suitable for the Presbyter John without the addition of his proper 
name. But how does the case stand in this respect with the Apostle John? 
Oecumenius says: ἦτοι ὅτι γεραιὸς ὧν ἤδη ἔγραψε ταύτας, ἢ καὶ ἐπίσκοπον καλῶν ἑαυτὸν 
διὰ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου; the former view, which is defended by Piscator, Lange, 
Carpzovius, Sander, Bleek, etc., has the form of the word against it; if John 
wanted to describe himself as “the old man,” it is not conceivable why he 


1 For, if John used the name because it was to whom he was writing; and if he did it for 
a coin once stamped for him, then he did not _ the latter cause, then plainly he did not do it 
use it to describe his special position to those for the former. 


INTRODUCTION. 631 


did not write ὁ γέρων, ὁ πρεσβύτης, or similarly, especially as ὁ πρεσβύτερος was 
already in use as an official name; even apart from the fact that the desig- 
nation would only vaguely state who the author was, the expression must 
certainly be taken, with Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, 
as an official name. For this purpose it was quite suitable to the Apostle 
John, as he was connected with the churches in question not merely as 
an apostle; but had entered into a special (episcopal) relationship towards 
them. He undertook the same position towards them as, immediately after 
the apostolic age, the bishop occupied towards the churches subordinate to 
him. Hence John might have called himself ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, but he could not, as 
in his time both expressions denoted the same position; though in later 
times, when in the ecclesiastical organization bishops and presbyters were 
definitely distinguished from one another, the former were still frequently 
described by the name οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. ---- (3) In the Third Epistle there is 
reference to a relationship of Diotrephes to the author of the Epistle, which, 
if this was the Apostle John, must certainly be regarded as strange. It 
seems more easy of explanation if, as Ebrard thinks, the author was an 
Ephesian presbyter to whose oversight the churches, in which Caius and 
Diotrephes were prominent members, had been intrusted; but in the first 
place this supposition lacks historical foundation, and, secondly, a still 
greater degree of violence would belong to the case if Diotrephes “prated 
with malicious words” against a man who was not only a member of the 
Ephesian presbytery, but also had to exercise an oversight over those 
churches, and who as an immediate μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου certainly enjoyed great 
respect. If Diotrephes was capable οὗ that, then his ambition— which in- 
deed may lead to the most extreme steps — might have induced him to 
despise even the dignity of an apostle. Besides, the particular circum- 
stances are much too unknown by us for it to be justifiable for us on.their 
account to deny the Apostle John the authorship of the Epistle. — The 
assertion that the prohibition contained in 2 John 10, 11, contradicts the 
loving disposition of the Apostle John, is with justice rejected by Ebrard, 
and that, too, with the suitable remark, “the love of the Apostle John was 
that sort of love which does not want to please, but to save souls; and hence 
he meets the lie not with careless connivance, but with firm confession of 
the truth and other discipline.” 


1 When Ebrard says that mpecButepos can- _— fore follow that an apostle might not assume 
not have been a title of the apostles, he is so to particular churches sucha position as would 
far right, as an apostle, as such, was not des- make this name suitable to him. 
ignated by that name; but it does not there- 


632 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. 


Baur (in the work quoted above) regards these two Epistles, as he does 
the First Epistle, as writings of Montanist origin. He proceeds from the 
fact that they both have one author, and that the second was written to 
the church to which Caius (to whom the Third Epistle is directed) belonged, 
and is no other than the Epistle mentioned in 3 John 9: in this church, 
Baur further says, a schism had taken place; the one part, with Diotrephes 
at their head, had refused ecclesiastical fellowship to the church to which 
the author of the Epistle belonged; the other part, on the contrary, were in 
agreement with this church; and that, although the cause of that schism 
is not evident from the Epistles themselves, it is nevertheless clear that it is 
conformable to a time at which there had already occurred between several. 
churches too lively differences about questions of the highest interest for 
the Christian mind. From these premises Baur concludes that the Second 
Epistle “was written to the Montanistically disposed section of the Roman 
Church ;” and that Diotrephes is the symbolic description of the bishop of 
Rome, not indeed, as Schwegler (Montanismus, p. 284) supposed, of Victor 
(for Irenaeus and Clemens Alex. already knew both Epistles), but of an 
earlier bishop, perhaps Soter, or Anicet, or Eleutheros. Baur in this proof 
lays a speciat weight upon the partisanship of the writer of the Epistle, 
which had gone so far that he describes the followers of Diotrephes just as 
heathen (3 John 7) (!). Baur finds the main support of his view in the 
passage of Clemens Al. cited above: Secunda Joannis ep., quae ad virgines 
scripta est, simplicissima est. Scripta vero est ad quandam Babyloniam 
Electam nomine, significat autem electionem ecclesia sanctae; he holds that 
in these words Clemens refers the name ᾿Εκλεκτῇ to the idea of the Church, 
inasmuch as the predicate of holiness is appropriate to it; that this quite 
corresponds to the idea of the Montanists, whose first demand of the Ec- 
clesia was that she should be, as the “sponsa Christi,” vera, pudica, sancta ; 
that the name Babylonia is to be allegorically understood of the city of 
Rome (as in 1 Pet. v. 13), where there were divided opinions in regard to 
Montanism. It does not require to be pointed out, how very much arbitrary 
and extraordinary modes of interpretation are heaped up in this statement. 
Quite apart from this, Baur’s assertion places Clemens in the most wonderful 
contradiction with himself: on the one hand, Clemens exactly specifies the 
Second Epistle as written by the Apostle John; and on the other hand, — 
though in an obscure way, —he is said to have stated that it was of Mon- 
tanist origin. And then, what could have induced a Montanist to invent 
epistles under the pretended name of the apostle, which do not contain 
any thing of Montanist character at all? Did he want to put the authority 


INTRODUCTION. 633. 


of John in the seale against the bishop of Rome? But the Epistle could 
not in any way have been used for that purpose, as it must have been clear 
to any one that John could not have written against Soter (or Anicet, or 
Eleutheros). The Montanists, however, have taken so little advantage of 
these Epistles for their interests, that the Montanist Tertullian never once 
mentions them! — Hilgenfeld assigns the appearance of the Second and 
Third Epistles, as that of the First Epistle, to the post-apostolic age: yet he 
does not seek their explanation in the interest of the author on behalf of 
Montanism, but he thinks that the Second Epistle is an “excommunicatory 
writing,” by which, in the form of the epistles which the Christian churches 
interchanged, an “ official apostolic condemnation ” was meant to be uttered 
against the fellowship with the Gnostic false teachers; and that the Third 
Epistle is an ἐπιστολὴ συστατικῆ Which originated in the church of John, and 
had the object of vindicating for that church the right to the circulation 
of such commendatory epistles, which the strict Jewish Christians would 
allow only to their patron James, as the author had known “the usefulness 
of such a regular passport” in the storms of Gnosticism. These hypoth- 
eses, according to which the circumstances hinted at in the Third Epistle 
are a pure invention, can, however, only be regarded as make-shifts to 
explain, as well as is possible, the origin of the two Epistles, which Hil- 
genfeld, for the same feasons as those for which he denies the genuineness 
of the First Epistle, thinks it is impossible to regard as memorials of the 
apostolic age. 


SEC. 2.—CONTENTS AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLES; TIME 
AND PLACE OF THEIR COMPOSITION. 


The Second Epistle begins with the inscription, which, after mentioning 
the writer and the receiver of the Epistle, contains the greeting of bene- 
diction. It is addressed, according to the most probable explanation of 
the word κυρίᾳ (see the commentary on ver. 1), to a Christian church, to 
which the author expresses his joy that its members are walking in truth, 
with which he connects an exhortation to mutual love, which he confirms 
by a reference to the appearance of false teachers whc deny that Jesus 
is the Christ, come in the flesh. After he has mentioned the abiding in 
the doctrine of Christ as the condition of fellowship with God, he forbids the 
brotherly reception of the opponents of this doctrine, because thereby we 
would make ourselves guilty of fellowship with their evil deeds. The 
conclusion of the Epistle contains a justification of its shortness, and the 


634 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. 


delivery of the greeting from the church in which the apostle is. —The 
design of the Epistle accordingly lies in the danger which threatened the 
church through the false teachers, and of which the author wanted to 
warn the church in few words before he could come to it himself. 

The Third Epistle also begins with an inscription, in which Caius (see 
on ver. 1) is mentioned as the receiver of it. After the wish that Caius 
may have prosperity, the apostle expresses his joy that he—according to 
the testimony of some brethren —is walking in the truth, and praises him 
especially on account of his active display of love towards strange brethren, 
whom he then recommends to his further care, because they went forth for 
Christ’s sake, and it is a duty to receive such.— Then he mentions the 
arbitrary procedure of Diotrephes, who withheld from the church a letter 
written to it by him, made evil speeches against him, and opposed the 
reception of the brethren; in connection with which the author expresses 
his intention to come and bring him to account. After an exhortation 
not to follow that which is evil, but that which is good, the apostle gives 
Demetrius (the probable bearer of this Epistle) a good testimonial, justifies 
himself for the shortness of his writing, and, after a short benediction, 
concludes by giving the greeting of friends and sending greeting to friends. 
The design of the Epistle accordingly was furnished by an incident which 
had occurred in the church of Caius. Some strange missionary brethren, 
who had found a friendly reception from Caius, had come to the apostle. 
The latter had written on their behalf to the church to which Diotrephes 
also belonged ; but Diotrephes, with insolent expressions against the apostle, 
had opposed the reception of those brethren, and had even cast out of the 
church those who did not agree with him. This Epistle is now meant to 
serve the purpose of confirming Caius in the continuation of his manifes- 
tations of love, as well as of intimating to him the near arrival of the 
apostle. — Ewald’s ideas, that both Epistles were addressed to one and 
the same church, that Diotrephes had specially interested himself in the 
false teachers, and that the Third Epistle was written to Caius from fear 
lest the Second Epistle might have been withheld from the Church by 
Diotrephes, are to be regarded as mere conjectures, which cannot be proved 
from the contents of the two Epistles. 

The Place and Time of their Composition are unknown in the case of both 
Epistles; yet it is not unlikely that 2 John 12 and 3 John 14 refer to a 
tour (perhaps one and the same) of inspection (especially as Eusebius, 
H. E., iii. 24, describes such a tour of inspection made by John from 
Ephesus), and that the Epistles were written in Ephesus.— As in the 


INTRODUCTION. 635 


Second Epistle the same false teachers are referred to that are spoken of 
in the First Epistle, it is probable that the places at which these two 
Epistles were composed are not far remote from one another.1— The 
remark of Eichhorn, that in the Second Epistle a more vigorous spirit is 
displayed than in the First, is no less incorrect than the idea that the 
“rigorous” (!) prohibition in 2 John 10, 11, indicates the still youthful old 


age of the apostle. 


1 According to Ebrard, the Second Epistle the similarities are the result of a backward 
appeared at a later date than the First; the reference, is only certain if the two Epistles 
proof of this he finds in the fact that the proceed from different authors. 
former refers back to the latter. But that 


636 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


> 
Ἰωάννου ἐπιστολὴ δευτέρα. 


THE superscription is shortest in B and &: ἐωάννου β..: in some codd. καθολικῆ 
is added to ἐπιστολῇ; in some τοῦ ἐπὶ στηθοῦς comes after ᾿Ιωάννου; in G it runs: 
tov ἁγίου ἀποστόλου ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου. In the Elz. ed., the superscription 
runs: Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ δευτέρα; the Rec. is ἐπιστολὴ ᾿Ιωάννου 
δευτέρα. 


Ver. 1. καὶ οὐκ ἐγώ]. Rec. The reading οὐκ ἐγὼ δέ in A, 73, Syr., Thph., 
owes its origin to the desire to mark the antithesis more sharply (Diisterdieck) ; 
Ebrard regards the Rec. as a correction, made in order to make the Second and 
the First Epistles conformable in style. Scarcely credible. G reads: καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ 
dé. — Ver. 2. The reading in A, ἐνοικοῦσαν, instead of μένουσαν, is too feebly 
attested for us to regard it, with Ebrard, as the correct one; it has probably 
arisen in order to avoid the tautology which μένουσαν appears to form with the 
following. — Ver. 3. The Elz. ed. reads ἔσται μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, which is attested by 
B, 6, δὰ, etc., several versions, etc. It is possible that ἡμῶν arose from the 
immediately preceding (so Braune), but just as likely that ἡμῶν was changed to 
ὑμῶν, because the former did not seem appropriate for the greeting; the weight 
of authorities is in favor of juov.—Instead of παρά, X* reads ἀπό (sol.). — 
Before Ἰησοῦ Xp., the Rec. has κυρίου, which is found in G, K,x®. In A, B, 
etc., κυρίου is wanting (Lachm., Tisch.); Bengel, Brickner, Sander, are in favor 
of the genuineness of κυρίου; yet the later insertion of it seems more probable ᾿ 
than the omission. — The αὐτοῦ of 8 between τοῦ υἱοῦ and τοῦ πατρός must be 
regarded as a clerical error. — Ver. 4. § (sol.) has instead of ἐλάβομεν the third 
person, ἔλαβον. -- B omits τοῦ before πατρός. --- Ver. 5. Instead of the Rec. γράφω, 
we must read γράφων; according to A, B, G, K, καὶ, ete. —Lachm. has καινῆν 
before γράφων, which is not adequately attested by A, 8, Vulg. — Ver. 6. In the 
second part, the succession of the words varies; in G, δὲ, most of the min., etc., 
αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολῇ (Rec.) is found; in A, B, K, ete., on the other hand, αὕτη 7 
ἐντολή ἐστιν (Lachm., Tisch.); it is possible that the Rec. has been formed in 
accordance with the preceding αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη. It is to be noticed that δὲ has 
before αὕτη a καῖ, and after ἐντολῇ an αὐτοῦ, and also that in the same cod. iva 
is found before καθώς, so that an epanalepsis occurs here. — Instead of περιπατῆτε, 
N reads περιπατήσητε. ---- Ver. 7. The most probable reading is ἐξῆλθον, according 
to A (ἐξῆλθαν, Tisch.), B, δὲ (Lachm.); the Rec. εἰσῆλθον, according to G, K, 
etc., is a correction; comp. 1 John ii. 19, iv. 1, and 3 John 7.— Ver. 8. The 
Rec., according to G, K, has ἀπολέσωμεν... εἰργασάμεθα .. . ἀπολάβομεν. 
Cod. A, and καὶ read: ἀπολέσητε (N*, ἀπολῆσθε) . . . eipyaoacbe . . . ἀπολάβητε: 
this reading, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., is regarded as the original reading 
by Liicke, De Wette, Reiche. Cod. B reads: ἀπολέσητε (according to Bentley’s 
collation; Griesb. gives ἀπολέσηται, which is also given by Tisch., bracketed, 
however) .. . εἰργασάμεθα. . . ἀπολάβετε; De Wette regards this reading as a 


VERSE 1. 637 


combination of the reading of A with the Rec.; Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune 
(also the 2d ed. of this comm.) regard the reading in B as the original. It is 
certainly the one by which the origin of the various readings can be easily 
explained; yet the circumstance that it is almost only found in B (Reiche: lectio 
codicis B in nullis aliis subsidiis inventa est, nisi quod Syr. p. in m. et Sahid. 
ejus sensum expressit) must render it doubtful. Of the two others, that of A 
and δὲ, at any rate, deserve the preference. Bengel would arbitrarily read: 
ἀπολέσητε... εἰργάσασθε . . . ἀπολάβομεν, which is only found in~Cod. 34.— 
Ver. 9. παραβαίνων]. Rec., according to G, K, ete., Syr., Thph., Oec. (Reiche). 
Lachm. and Tisch. read instead of it, προάγων, which is attested by A, B, &, 
ete., and the readings praecedit and procedit in several codd. of the Vulg. 
(against which, in the printed Vulg. and Lucif., is recedit). The opinion of 
Matthaei and Liicke, that προάγων arose out of the paraphrase which appears in 
the scholia: ἀπάγων ἑαυτόν, which also occurs in Oecumenius, is unfounded; 
this explanation rather points to προάγων as the original reading. —The Ree. 
(according to G, K, etc., several vss., Thph., Oec.) has, both after the first and 
after the second ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ, the addition τοῦ Χριστοῦ; Lachm. and Tisch. 
have the addition only after the first; so in A, B, δὲ, several min., Vulg., etc.; 
this is to be regarded as the correct reading. —It is doubtful whether υἱόν or 
πατέρα comes first in the following sentence; the Rec., retained by Lachm., is: 
τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν: this is found in B, G, K, δὰ, etc., several vss., Thph., 
Oec.; Tisch., on the other hand, following A and several vss., has accepted τὸν 
υἱὸν kat τὸν πατέρα; but this appears to be a change effected on account of 
ἐν τῇ διό. τοὺ Χριστοῦ, --- Ver. 11. ὁ γὰρ λέγων]. Rec., according to G, K, almost 
all min., Thph., Oec. (Tisch. 2); instead of it Tisch. 7 (similarly Lachm.), 
according to A, B, δὲ, reads ὁ λέγων yap, which, as unusual, might be prefer- 
able. Tisch. 7 remarks: ydp tertio loco positum fere ubique a plerisque testibus 
in secundum locum translatum. — Tisch. has omitted “γάρ after αὐτῷ, although 
it is wanting only in K, several min., and Oec. — Ver. 12. 8* has ἔχω: §8,, how- 
ever, éywv. —Instead of ἐλπίζω γάρ, Rec. (Lachm.), according to A, some 
min. and vss,, Tisch., following B, G, K, 8, many min., etc., reads: ἀλλὰ 
ἐλπιζω; this reading is the original one; the context might easily lead to the 
change of ἀλλά into yap. — γενέσθαι]. This reading, recommended by Gries- 
bach, has been accepted also by Lachm. and Tisch. The Rec. ἐλθεῖν (according 
to G, K, ete.) is a correetion. Instead of στόμα zp, στ., N* reads: στόματι πρὸς 
στόμα. ---ἢ χαρὰ ἡ μῶν]. Rec., according to G, K, δὲ, etc., Tisch.; instead of it, 
Lachm., following A, B, ete., Vulg., etc., reads: 7 χαρὰ ὑμῶν; ὑμῶν perhaps is 
preferable; the preceding ἡμᾶς might easily lead to the change into ἡμῶν, --- 
Instead of ἡ πεπληρωμένη, Rec., according to A, G, K, all min., ete. (Tisch.), 
the reading of Β, δὰ, Vulg., is tewA7p. 7 (Lachm.). — The Rec., following G, K, 
etc., adds for conclusion ἀμήν, a later addition. —In various codd., a subscrip- 
tion is found which runs most briefly in A, B, δὲ, thus: ’lwdyvov 8. The Cod. 
62 adds the words πρὸς Πάρθους (comp. on 1 John). 


Vy. 1-3. Superscription of the Epistle. 

Ver. 1. ὁ πρεσβύτερος]. The definite article restricts the general idea 
mpeoBurepoc to a particular person, to whom this epithet is specially appro- 
priate. That this is most probably the Apostle John, see Introduction, 
sec. 1. The reflection on his age may have led the apostle to write, not 
6 ἐπίσκοπος, but ὁ πρεσβύτερος. ---- ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ Kai Toi¢ τέκνοις αὐτῆς]. The inter- 


088 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

pretation of these words has from the earliest times been very diverse, 
according as either ἐκλεκτῇ or κυρία has been regarded as a proper noun, or 
both words have been considered as appellatives. The first opinion (Lyranus, 
a Lapide, Lorinus, Cappellus, Grotius, Wetstein, etc.) has been with justice 
given up by modern commentators; it is clearly enough opposed not only by 
the mode of its conjunction with κυρία, but also by ver. 138. The second view, 
according to which κυρία is the proper noun, is found as early as in Athana- 
sius, and afterwards in Bengel, Carpzovius, Heumann, Krigel (Commentatio de 
κυρία Johannis, Lips., 1758), Paulus, Liicke, De Wette, Briickner, Guericke, 
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, etc. That Kupia appeared as a feminine proper 
name, is not to be doubted; see Grutteri, Jnscripit. Ὁ. 1127, num. xi.; comp. 
Heumann: Poecile de Cyria Johannis: but if this view be taken, not only is 
the adjective ἐκλεκτή strange, as it never is assigned to any individual in the 
N. T. as a single predicate except in Rom. xvi. 13 (where, however, ἐν κυρίῳ 
is put along with it), but also its connection with the proper noun, instead 
of Kupia τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ : comp. 3 John 1; Phil. i. 1,2; Rom. xvi. Liicke, it is 
true, refers to 1 Pet. i. 1: ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις ; but here the case is different, 
as παρεπιδήμοις is not a proper noun, as even Briickner admits, though he 
nevertheless falls back on a “familiar carelessness” in this case.1 The 
third interpretation is found in Luther (“the elect woman”), Hornejus, 
Wolf, Rittmeier (Diatriba, de electa domina, Helmst., 1706), Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Sander, ete. According to Epictetus, chap. 62: ai γυναῖκες εὐθὺς ἀπὸ 
τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα ἐτῶν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνδρὼν κυρίαι καλοῦνται, Women might certainly be 
called κυρίαι; but this was plainly only a polite address, corresponding not to 
the German Frau (woman), but to the German Herrin (lady). It hardly 
corresponds with the apostolic dignity of the author, however, to describe 
the receiver of the Epistle in the superscription by this name of a conven- 
tional politeness.2 But the opinion of Knauer (Stud. u. Krit., 1833, Part 2, 
p-. 452 ff.), that by ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία is to be understood Mary, the mother of 
Jesus, lacks any tenable foundation (see Liicke on this passage). — Already 
at an early date κυρία was taken as a symbolic description of the Christian 
Church; so Jerome (Ep. xi. ad Ageruchiam) and the» Scholiast I. (ἐκλεκτὴν 
κυρίαν λέγει τὴν ἐν τινὶ τόπῳ ἐκκλησίαν), and later Calovius, Whiston, Michaelis, 
Augusti, Hofmann (in his Weissagung u. Erfiillung, II. p. 321, and in his 
Schrifibew., I. p. 226 ff.), Hilgenfeld (1855), Ewald, etc. It is true the 
word does not elsewhere appear in this signification; but according to its 
connection with Him who is ὁ κύριος, the Church may certainly be called 
κυρία in its relationship to the individual members.* Both the contents of 


1 According to Ewald, it is ‘‘foolish to κυρία. That Frau originally corresponded to 


think’ that *‘ the apostle is here writing to an 
individual woman.” 

2 Against the distinction between the ex- 
pressions Frau and Zerritn, Braune adduces 
the etymology of the former word (Frau, 
feminine of fro = Herr); this is quite irrele- 
vant here, however, as it is not the German, 
but the Greek, expressions, that are in ques- 
tion; it is the distinction between γυνὴ and 


the expression κυρία, is certain, —the word is 
even yet frequently used in this sense, — but 
it does not therefore follow that the Greek 
κυρια became so much weakened in usage as 
the German word Frau. 

3 Hofmann recalls the description of the 
Church in the Apocalypse as the νύμφη and 
the γυνή. When Ebrard objects to thia, that 
the Church in contrast with the “ Lord” is 


VERSE 1. 639 
the Epistle, which is lacking in the slightest individual reference to a single 
person, and the way in which John speaks to the receivers of the Epistle 
and passes judgment on them (comp. what follows in this verse; further, 
vy. 4, 5, 8, 10); and, finally, the way in which the sister and her children 
are mentioned,!—are no less opposed to the opinion that the Epistle was 
written to one particular woman, than they are in favor of the opinion that 
it was directed to a Christian church: only κυρία must not be regarded as 


the name of honor of any one particular church (according to Serrarius of ἡ 


the Corinthian church, or according to Augusti of that of Jerusalem); it is 
rather a name suitable for every church, by which, therefore, that church 
could also be described to which the Epistle is directly addressed.?— καὶ 
τοὶς τέκνοις αὐτῆς]. If κυρία is a description of the church, the τέκνα are 
her individual members. The representation of the Church as a mother, 
and of her members as her children, occurs elsewhere also; comp. Gal. 
iv. 96. -- οὖς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθεῖα]. If we take κυρία as a proper noun, then 
οὺς indicates that by τέκνοις only sons are to be understood; but why then 
does not the apostle write καὶ τοὶς υἱοῖς αὐτῆς ἢ If the τέκνα are the members 
of the church, however, then οὖς is used here exactly as texvia μου, ob¢ in Gal. 
iv. 9; comp. also Matt. xxviii. 19: τὰ ἔθνη. . . αὐτούς. Suitable though the 
masculine is to denote all church-members, it would be just as unsuitable to 
denote members of one family, if this consisted not merely of sons, but — 
as Braune here supposes—of, daughters also. ἐγώ is used emphatically, 
inasmuch as the apostle wants to bring out his intimate relationship to the 
members of the Church. — ἐν ἀληθείᾳ in its connection with ἀγαπὼ is not = ἐν 
τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, as if the (Christian) truth were thereby indicated as the element 
in which love has its existence (Bengel, Diisterdieck) ; but it is used adverb- 
ially, not, however, to emphasize the sincerity of the love, but, as the word 
itself states, the truth of the love (Ebrard: “I love thee with that love which 
is a love in truth;” similarly Liicke: “ it is the real Christian love that is 
meant;” and Braune).— «ai οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ πάντες]. All who have 
known the truth share with the apostle love to the τέκνα of the κυρία. This 
addition also goes to show that κυρία is not a proper noun; for, how could 
the children of an individual woman be regarded as an object of the love of 
all believers? Bengel, with whom Diisterdieck agrees, remarks indeed on 
this, communio sanctorum’?: but the apostle’s mode of expression presupposes 


not ‘ the lady,”’ but the obedient handmaid, it 
must be remembered that she is here spoken 


however, ** had in view the whole of orthodox 
Christendom” (Hilgenfeld), is just as little 


of not in regard to her subordinate relation- 
ship to Christ, but in regard to her superior 
relationship to her individual members. 

1 De Wette also says: ‘‘ The way in which 
her sister and her sister’s children are men- 
tioned is favorable to the idea that a single 
Christian church is meant.” 

2 That the Epistle is directly addressed to a 
particular church, is evident from ver. 12; the 
want of referénces to individual circumstances 
may perhaps be explained by the fact that it 
also had an encyclical design: that the author, 


appropriate to this Epistle as to the First. — 
Braune’s considerations are of little impor- 
tance: the name of the church might be 
omitted, because the bearer of the Epistle 
knew to what church he had to take it; 
ἐκλεκτή is by no means unsuitable with κυρία 
= ἐκκλησία, according to ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνε- 
κλεκτή (by which the church is certainly to be 
understood) ; it has not been asserted that the 
relationship of the mother in Gal. iv. 26 has 
been given to a single church. 


640 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

an actual knowledge about one another. Several commentators accordingly 
have recourse to a weakening of the idea πάντες,; which, however, is arbi- 
trary. — ἀλήθεια is the divine truth, of which the believer becomes a partaker 
in Christ. The emphasis of ἀλήθεια both here and in ver. 2 is caused by 
the antithesis to the πλάνοι (ver. 7). The bracketing of the words καὶ οὐκ 
. . . τὴν ἀλήθειαν, “ spoils the clearness of the connection, and is also logically 
not quite correct, because ver. 2 refers not only to éyw, but also to πάντες " 
(Liicke). 

Ver, 2 states the cause of the love. —dca τὴν ἀλήθειαν THY μένουσαν 
ἐν ἡμῖν]. The idea μένειν signifies here, as in the First Epistle, firm, sure 
existence. —In juiv the apostle includes the loving and the loved (so also 
Braune).— The ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ is based on the possession of the ἀλήθεια. 
— Carpzovius incorrectly connects these words with ver. 3.— By the addi- 
tion, καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμὼν éora: εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, the imperishable endurance of fellowship 
with the truth is declared (Diisterdieck, Braune), and it is not merely the 
wish for it that is expressed (Liicke, Ebrard). By μετά (as distinguished 
from ἐν) the objectivity of the truth is indicated (Braune). The irregularity 
of the construction, inasmuch as the finite verb is used instead of a participle 
(comp. A. Buttmann, p. 327 [E. T., 382]; Winer, p. 5383 ΓΕ: T., 578]), 
serves to give prominence to the idea. 

Ver. 3. The formula of greeting. It agrees substantially with that 
which is found in most of the N. T. Epistles; the prefixed ἔσται μεθ’ ἡμῶν 
(ὑμῶν), however, is peculiar; the future indicates the wish as a certain 
expectation, which is based on the immediately preceding statement (Diister- 
dieck). If we take the reading ἡμὼν (see the critical notes), the apostle 
includes himself along with the readers of the Epistle, which indeed does 
not elsewhere occur in the salutatory formulae; μετά = “ with.” —yapic, 
ἔλεος, εἰρήνη, just as in 1 and 2 Tim. and Tit. 1.4.2— rapa Θεοῦ πατρός]. 
Instead of παρὰ, ἀπὸ is elsewhere regularly used in this connection, as δὲ reads 
here also; on the difference of the two prepositions, see Winer, p. 342 (E. T., 
364 1... — To Θεοῦ πατρός, ἡμῶν is always added by Paul, except in the Pastoral 
Epistles. God is here called πατήρ, first of all in His relation to Christ, but 
also with the consciousness that in Christ He is the Father of believers also. 
—kai παρὰ Ἴησ. Xp. τοῦ υἱοὺ τοῦ πατρὸς, similarly in the other Epistles 
of the N. T., only that here the sonship of Christ is specially indicated ; the 
repetition of the preposition brings out the independence of the Son along 
with the Father. — The last addition, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ, is peculiar to John; 
the aa, and ἀγάπη are the two vital elements (Baumgarten-Crusius: funda- 


1 Hornejus: ‘*Omnes fideles, non quidem 
qui in toto orbe tum temporis erant, sed qui 
in illis partibus et simul Dominam illam et 
liberos ejus norant.” — Liicke: “πάντες, K.T.Asy 
i.e., all Christians (perhaps of this place?) 
who know the Kyria and her children;” 
Braune agrees with this explanation, but 
would regard ‘‘as included, even those who 
would later become acquainted with her’? — 
which is clearly unsultable. 


2 The explanation of these words given on 
1 Tim. i. 2 is regarded as unsatisfactory by 
Diisterdieck, although it is in substantial 
agreement with his own, only that it is not 
expressly stated that χάρις means ‘ grace,” 
ἔλεος **mercy,’’ and εἰρήνη ‘* peace,’? — which 
is surely self-evident, — but only the relation 
of the three ideas to one another, which is 
often erroneously interpreted, is pointed out. 


VERSES 4, 5, 6. 641 


mental features) of the believer, in which the divine manifestations of grace, 
mercy, and peace have to work (Diisterdieck): “the words contain an indi- 
cation of the contents of the whole Epistle” (Ebrard) ; a Lapide erroneously 
supplies: ut perseveretis vel ut crescatis. Grotius wrongly defines the relation- 
ship when he says: per cognitionem veri et dilectionem mutuam, nam per haec 
in nos Dei beneficia provocamus, conservamus, augemus, in the first place, ἐν is 
not = per; and, in the second place, our conduct is not the cause of the 
divine χάρις, «.7.4., but the relationship is the converse. 

Ver. 4. The Epistle begins with the assurance of joy at the conduct of 
those to whom it is addressed. The preface to most of the Pauline Epistles 
is similar. This verse refers back to the preceding ἐν ἀληθείᾳ; ver. 5, on the 
other hand, to ἐν ἀγάπῃ. --χάρην λίαν; not, “I have greatly rejoiced” 
(Luther); the aorist is to be kept in its own meaning. The apostle is speak- 
ing historically of the time at which he had the experience which he states 
in the following words. —é7 εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου περιπατοῦντας 
ἐν ἀληθείᾳ]. ἐκ τῶν τέκν. is not= τὰ τέκνα cov; it is indicated by the ἐκ 
that John could not boast the περιπατεῖν ἐν ad. of all, but not that “he had 
not become acquainted with all” (Diisterdieck). Braune’s observation is 
erroneous, that, “as the article is wanting with περιπατοῦντας, it is “ποῦ indi- 
cated that the other children were not walking ἐν aa.” With περιπατεῖν ἐν, 
comp. John viii. 12; 1 John i. 6, 7; 3 John 3, 4, and several other passages. 
—eipnxa indicates a previous meeting with the children of the «vpia — and 
hence a previous sojourn of the apostle in the church to which he is writing; 
incorrectly, Sander: “I have found as the result of my examination ;” the 
preterite ἐχάρην does not suit this interpretation.— If κυρία be a proper 
noun, it remains uncertain where the apostle met with her children. Luicke, 
on account of ver. 12, considers it unlikely that the apostle had been in 
the family; “he seems to have met the τέκνα somewhere else without the 
mother ” (so also Braune). Not only this uncertainty, but also the circum- 
stance that John does not express himself further about the children who 
are not walking in the truth, indicates that he is not speaking of a family, 
but of a church, which is erroneously disputed by Braune.—xaddc¢ ἐντολὴν 
ἐλάβομεν]. καθώς (which is not to be taken here, with Ebrard, argumenta- 
tively = “because indeed”) does not more particularly define the περιπατεῖν 
in itself, as if ἐν ἀληθείᾳ were only added adverbially for confirmation = “who 
in truth walk as,” etc.; but καθώς refers to the περιπατεῖν ἐν ἀληθ., and ἀλήθεια 
is Christian truth, as in ver. 3; thus, “who are walking in the truth, according 
as we received commandment” (Diisterdieck). By this, however, we are not 
to understand one particular commandment, but the obligation which is 
contained in the Christian faith to walk in the truth. παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, 
see ver. 3; the intervention of the Son is implied. ; 

Vv. 5,6. καὶ viv ἐρωτῶ σε]. viv is used here, not temporally, but 
logically. Diisterdieck refers it to the immediately preceding subordinate 
clause, καθὼς, «.7.4.; Ebrard, on the other hand, to the idea εὕρηκα, «.7.4.; but 


1 Ebrard, appropriately: “Τὸ is a delicate which he has to express in a mere limitation 
way in which the presbyter covers the blame of praise.” 


642 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 
it is more correctly referred to ἐχάρην, «.7.A.; the joy which the apostle felt is 
the cause of his present request (so also Briickner and Braune). John says 
ἐρωτῶ instead of the usual παρακαλῶ, as the request is suitable to the church, 
as a κυρία. ---οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν γράφων σοι καινὴν, «.7.A.]. Comp. 1 John 
li. 7. — iva ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, dependent on ἐρωτῶ, comp. John xvii. 15, not 
on ἐντολὴν ἔχομεν (Baumgarten-Crusius), “for this is used in a subordinate 
clause merely, and ἐρωτῶ would be without connection and without object ” 
(Briickner). ἕνα states here also not merely the purpose, but the substance 
of the request (contrary to Braune).— Ver. 6. καὶ airy . . . ἵνα]. The same 
construction, 1 John v. 38. The apostle is not distinguishing the command- 
ment of love from the other commandments (De Wette), but is describing 
the walking according to the commandments of God as the substance and 
essence of love; with justice, for, in the first place, only that love is moral — 
or, more particularly, Christian — in its character, which is founded on obe- 
dience toward God, and therefore “consists in the fulfilment of the com- 
mandments of God that regulate our relationship to our neighbor” (Ebrard) ; 
and, in the second place, the aim of all the divine commandments is nothing 
else than love. Briickner, Braune, and others here interpret ἡ ἀγάπη incor- 
rectly of “Christian love simply,” including also the love of God and Christ; 
the close connection of this sentence with the preceding one (ἢ ἀγάπη clearly 
refers back to iva ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους) compels us to understand ἡ ἀγαπῆ of 
Christian brotherly love. The thought last expressed is specially empha- 
sized by the following words. According to the reading, αὕτη ἡ ἐντολῆ ἐστι, 
we must translate: ‘*‘ This commandment is (consists in this), as ye have heard 
Jrom the beginning (no other than this), that ye should walk ἐν αὐτῇ." ---ἢ ἐντολὴ 
resumes the preceding τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ: the transition from the plural to the 
singular is not difficult; comp. 1 John iii. 22, 23. —iva states the substance 
of the commandment, and ἐν αὐτῇ refers to ἀγάπη (De Wette-Briickner, Liicke, 
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune), and not to ἐντολῇ (Sander); for this would 
not only give an inadmissible tautology, but would also be contrary to John’s 
mode of expression, in which the phrase περιπατεῖν ἐν τῇ ἐντολὴ does not appear. 
— By the intervening clause καθὼς ἠκούσατε, “a subordinate definition of the 
ἐντολή " (Liicke, De Wette) is not given, but it is observed that the readers 
have heard from the beginning what is the substance of the divine com- 
mandment; the apostle thereby refers back to what was said in ver. 5 (so 
also Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Briickner, Braune). The circle that results from 
this interpretation only serves to bring clearly out the identity of brotherly 
love and obedience toward God. 

Ver. 7. In this verse the apostle addresses himself to the warning against 
the false teachers, whom he first more particularly characterizes. The ὅτι, 
with which the verse begins, indicates that the foregoing exhortation to 


1 KOstlin incorrectly interprets (p. 218): 
«The old commandment, that we should love 
one another, means nothing else than that we 
should abide in what He has commanded us to 
believe.’ That ἐντολή here denotes the com- 
mand to believe (1 John iii. 23), finds no con- 


firmation in the context. — Ebrard unjustifiably 
asserts that the obscurity of the expression in 
this verse is to be explained by the fact that 
the apostle intentionally alludes to some pas- 
sages of the First Epistle, with which he 
assumes the Kyria to be familiar. 


VERSE 8. 643 


mutual love has its origin in the fear of their being disturbed by the influ- 
ence of the false teachers; but it is not to be inferred from this that ὅτι is 
grammatically dependent on ἐρωτῶ ce. It would be grammatically possible 
also to regard this verse as the premise on which ver. 8 is based (Grotius, 
Carpzovius), but such a construction is at variance with the peculiarity of 
John’s diction. —ére πολλοὶ πλάνοι]. The expression πλάνοι does not else- 
where appear in John; comp. on the other hand, Matt. xxvii..63; 2 Cor. 
vi. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 1; instead of it in 1 John ii. 26: of πλανῶντες ὑμᾶς. ---- With 
this passage may be compared 1 John ii. 18 ff., ἵν. 1. -- ἐξῆλθον [εἰσῆλθον] 
εἰς τὸν κόσμον does not denote separation from the church; κόσμος does 
not here form the antithesis of the ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ; the sense is rather the 
same here as in John iv. 1. The difference between εἰσῆλθ. and ἐέξῆλθ. is 
only this, that by the latter expression the point of departure is more defi- 
nitely indicated. —oi μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες, x.7.A., comp. 1 John iv. 2, 3; on 
the N. T. usage of the article before the participle after 70/407, comp. Buttm., 
p- 254 (E. T., 296); μὴ ὁμολογεῖν Ξε ἀρνεῖσθαι. The uf is not to be ex- 
plained, with Winer (p. 450 [E. T., 4857), by the fact that the participie 
refers to a representative class (= quicumque non profitentur), but it is used 
just as in 1 John iv. 3: ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ ; see on this passage. —’Iycotv Χριστὸν 
ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί is to be taken just as the words 1 John iv. 2, that run 
almost exactly similarly. The present participle ἐρχόμενον, instead of which 
ἐληλυθότα is used there, expresses the idea in itself — apart from the idea of 
time; comp. John vi. 14. Bengel, incorrectly, qui veniebat, with an appeal 
to 3 John 3, for in this passage ἐρχομένων and μαρτυρούντων, by their close 
connection with ἐχάρην, are distinctly indicated as imperfect participles; such 
a connection does not exist here, nor are we to interpret, with Baumgarten- 
Crusius, “ He who was to come.” Still more incorrectly Oecumenius takes it 
as future participle, referring it to the second coming of Christ: —oiré¢ 
ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος]. οὗτος refers back to οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες, 
«7.4. By ὁ πλάνος the apostle resumes the preceding πλάνοι; by ὁ dvrt- 
χρίστος he adds a new characteristic. — The definite article indicates these 
ideas as familiar to the readers; the antichrist of whom they have heard, 
comp. 1 John ii. 18. — The singular is here used in collective signification 
(Liicke); the many are the antichrist, inasmuch as the same πνεῦμα τῆς 
πλάνης is in all; comp. further, the remarks on 1 John ii. 18. 

Ver. 8. The warning against the deceivers. — βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, ‘‘ take heed 
to yourselves ;"’ βλέπειν with the refl. pron. besides here only in Mark xiii. 9. 
— The construction iva after βλέπειν only in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 besides; by iva it 
is not the purpose (“take heed to yourselves, sc. of them, so that”), but the 
immediate object of their foresight that is stated (contrary to De Wette, 
Braune, and A. Buttm., p. 209).1— iva, κιτ.λ.1. Whatever may be the correct 
reading, the thought remains essentially the same: the apostle warns his 


1 Braune here adduces various passages of nected is absolute or relative (requiring sup- 
the N. T. in order to vindicate for the particle plement), and he has not reflected that if the 
ἵνα the meaning of purpose (‘‘ so that’’); but clause beginning with ἵνα forms the supple- 
he has not paid attention to the distinction ment of the preceding verbal idea, iva cannot 
whether the verbal idea with which tva is con- be = ** so that.” 


644 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


readers not to let themselves be deprived, by the false teachers, of the 
blessing of which they became partakers through the evangelistic work. 
With the reading εἰργασάμεθα those who havé worked are John and his asso- 
ciates; that ἐν ὑμῖν, or a similar phrase, must be put along with it for more 
particular definition (Lucke), is unfounded, as this more particular definition 
lies in the context itself. with the reading εἰργάσασθε, on the other hand, it 
is the work of the receivers of the Epistle themselves that is meant, who 
should just as little come short of the attainment of the blessing as the 
former.— The object of ἐργάζεσθα:, indicated by a, is not exactly the μισθός, 
which is also spoken of, but the work directly effected by the labor, the 
result or the fruit of it. Fruit had been obtained in the church by means 
of the work (fruit of knowledge, love, etc.); it was of importance that they 
should not again be deprived of this fruit; this is expressed by μὴ ἀπολε- 
onte: their loss may also, however, be considered as a loss to those who had 
worked among them by the preaching of the gospel, so that, as far as 
the sense is concerned, the Rec. ἀπολέσωμεν is perhaps justifiable; but the 
reading ἀπολέσηται, that they (ἃ) may not be lost,” also gives good sense, 
so that no cause exists for regarding it, with Liicke, as a mere clerical error. 
— If, however, that which was directly obtained by the work be lost again, 
then the future reward (μισθός) promised to Christians also disappears; 
therefore the apostle antithetically adds: ἀλλὰ μισθὸν πλῆρη ἀπολάβητε, 
With the reading ἀπολάβωμεν we might be disposed to understand by the 
reward the heavenly gift which the apostle himself had to expect on account 
of his work; but he could not be deprived of this by the conduct of those 
among whom he had labored, as it depends not on the result, but on the 
faithfulness of the work; by μεσθός, therefore, must certainly be understood 
the reward which those to whom John is writing have to expect; for this, | 
however, -the reading ἀπολάβητε is plainly more suitable than ἀπολάβωυμεν 
(so also Briickner). —peoddv πλήρη is not = μισθὸν πόλυν (Carpzovius), but 
“full reward;” by πλήρη it is not meant that if they did not exhibit faith- 
fulness they would receive only an imperfect reward, nor even that up to 
the present they had only received a part of the reward (Grotius, Aretius, 
Ebrard), but that the reward which, if they exhibit faithfulness, they shall 
obtain, is a quite full reward, in which there is nothing lacking (Diisterdieck, 
Brickner). 

Ver. 9 brings out clearly the importance of abiding in the truth. — πᾶς ὁ 
προάγων καὶ μὴ μένων]. προάγειν and μένειν form a natural antithesis; προάγειν in 
the neuter sense, “to advance farther,” signifies here, in reference to διδαχῇ, 
“to advance beyond the limits of the (Christian) doctrine,” and contains an 
ironical allusion to the pretensions of the false teachers to have advanced 
to a higher degree of knowledge.! The Rec. παραβαίνων means: “to pass by 
any thing;” we must supply along with it either τὴν διδαγῆν (according to 
the analogy of παραβαίνειν τὴν ἐντολῆν, Matt. xv. 3), or ἀπὸ (ἐκ) τῆς διδαχῆς 3 
comp. Acts i. 25: ἀποστολῆς ag’ (Rec. ἐξ) ἧς παρέβη ᾿Ιούδας. It is clearly 


. 


1 When Braune rejects this with the re- not consider in what connection the above was 
mark. ‘‘ there 1s a bitter truth in fact,” he did said. 


VERSE 10. 645 


unwarrantable to supply the idea ἐντολῆ out of ver. 7.— καὶ μὴ μένων ἐν 
τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; comp. John viii. 31: μένειν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ; 
2 Tim. iii. 14. --τοῦ Χριστοῦ is not the objective (Sander, Ebrard, etc.), 
but the subjective genitive (Diisterdieck, Ewald, Braune); the doctrine 
which, proceeding from Christ, was proclaimed by the apostles. — Θεὸν οὐκ 
ἔχει; comp. 1 John ii. 23. The doctrine of Christ is the truth; he who has 
not the truth has not God; for in its deepest source the truth is the living 
God Himself. Weiss (p. 29) unsatisfactorily interprets éyecv of the mere 
“possession in knowledge,” in place of which, on p. 77, however, he says, 
“the possession effected by means of the contemplative knowledge of 
Christ,” as if the latter were identical with the former. By the following 
sentence the same thought is expressed positively, and is completed by 
τὸν υἱόν, Which is the cause of changing Θεός to πατήρ. 

Ver. 10. Warning against fellowship with false teachers. ef rec ἔρχεται 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς]. The more particular definition of the τις is contained in the 
following: xa? ... φέρε. The particle εἰ is used here because “the case is 
put as if actual” (Winer). The author assumes the ἔρχεσθαι as really 
occurring, and in reference to it gives the command: μὴ λαμβάνετε; if he had 
regarded the coming as a thing which might only possibly occur, he would 
have put ἐάν; hence it is unsuitable to say that εἴ τις is un-Johannean 
(Ebrard), “for it cannot be un-Johannean to assume a case as a reality” 
(Braune).—kxal ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν ob φέρει] Τ. τ. διδ., namely, the διό, τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ. The phrase φέρειν τ. ded. only here in the N. T.; comp. the 
classical μῦθον, ἀγγελίην φέρειν twi. — On od after εἰ, see Al. Buttm., p. 299 
(KE. T., 348). Grotius rightly says: non de tis qui alient semper fuerunt ab 
ecclesia (1 Cor. v. 10), sed de ws qui volunt fratres haberi et doctrinam evertunt. 
It is only with this interpretation that the prohibition of the apostle can be 
correctly understood. — μὴ λαμβάνετε αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκίαν is to be understood of the 
hospitable reception into our house, which is to be accorded to the brethren 
as such; the apostle therefore forbids the brotherly reception of such as 
bring not the doctrine of Christ, but another doctrine opposed to it, and are, 
accordingly, assiduous in asserting the latter. The limitation of the pro- 
hibition to the relationship of g:Aogevia (Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii. 2) finds no 
support in the words of the apostle. Now such a κρίσις was so much the 
more necessary, the more the false teachers sought to abuse the Christian 
hospitality, in order to gain. for themselves access to the churches; comp. 
2 Tim. 111. 6.— καὶ χαίρειν αὐτῷ μὴ λέγετε]. It is arbitrary to limit this prohi- 
bition, with Clemens Alex., to the salutatio, quae fiebat, postquam surgebatur 
ab oratione solemni velut gaudii et pacis indicium; as well as to interpret it in 
that degree of generality which a Lapide gives it when he says: vetat hic 
Joh. omne colloquium, omne consortium, omne commercium cum haereticis ; just 
as little is it to be interpreted, with Vitringa (De Synag. vet., p. 759), of the 
excommunication proper. This prohibition is in closest connection with 


1 According to Ebrard, this verse is a quo- tions, the existence of which can otherwise be 
tation of the passage 1 John ii. 23. But that explained only by arbitrary conjectures in an 
this is not so is shown by the manifold devia- artificial way. 


040 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 

the preceding, and similarly refers to εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑμῶς, «7.2.5 it is 
meant to strengthen the former; not merely the hospitable reception into 
the house, but also the friendly greeting of the false teacher, if he comes 
as a Christian brother, is not to take place! (comp. Hofmann, Schrifibew., 
ii. 2, p. 339). The word χαίρειν, as a formula of salutation, appears 
frequently both in the classics and also in the N. T., especially in Epistles ; 
see Wahl on this word. 

Ver. 11. Confirmation of the preceding prohibition. —6 λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ 
χαίρειν]. The apostle mentions only this one thing, because what he says 
about it is self-evident in regard to the rest also. —xowwvei τοὶς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ 
τοῖς πονηροῖς, i.e., inasmuch as the χαίρειν λέγειν is not merely an outward 
display of politeness, but an expression of an intimate relation of fellow- 
ship.— By τὰ ἔργα τὰ πονηρά we are to understand, of course, the false 
doctrine, but, at the same time, along with this the whole evil character of 
the false teachers, which was very closely connected with their doctrine.? 

Ver. 12. Justification of the shortness of the Epistle. — πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν 
γράφειν, says the apostle, conscious as he was of having only given a few 
brief hints of that which was agitating his mind. —oix ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου 
καὶ μέλανος]. From the idea γράφειν the more general idea of communication 
is to be supplied. — χάρτης “is the Egyptian paper (papyrus), and probably 
the finer augustan sort, which served for letters (Hug, Einl., i. 106);” 
De Wette. — μέλαν, besides here, only in 3 John 13; 2 Cor. iii. 8. The 
following words: ἀλλὰ ἐλπίζω, state the reason of οὐκ ἐβουλήθην; by ἀλλά the 
reason is expressed in the form of an antithesis. — γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς]. In 
the phrase: γέγνεσθαι πρός, the ideas of motion, and of rest, are both 
included; comp. γιγν. εἰς, Acts xxi. 17, xxv. 15; the construction with πρός: 
1 Cor. xvi. 10; comp. John x. 35; Acts x. 13, etc. —xal στόμα πρὸς στόμα 
λαλῆσαι]. An imitation of the Hebrew ma-ds m3, Num. xii. 8; comp. 
πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Similar combinations in the classics 
also; Xen., Mem., ii. 6, 32, στόμα πρὸς στόμα is used of a kiss. —iva 4 χαρὰ, 
«.7.4,; comp. 1 John i. 4. With the reading ἡμῶν (see the critical notes) 
mutual joy is meant; comp. Rom. i. 11, 12. 

Ver. 13. Presentation of the greeting from the children of the κυρία᾽ 8 
sister. If κυρία were a proper noun, we would have to suppose that the 


1 Ebrard contradicts himself when, in op- view, then perhaps impossible, that man even 


position to the interpretation given here, he 
first maintains that χαίρειν λέγειν here is the 
“‘ quite general idea of the greeting of conven- 
tional politeness,” and afterwards interprets: 
“He who greets such a false teacher, i.e., 
keeps up personal acquaintance and conven- 
tional intercourse with him.” 

2 De Wette’s remark, justly rejected by 
Briickner, is utterly erroneous: ‘* This prohi- 
bition finds its justification in polemic zeal, 
and the necessity for defence against what 
seemed fatal to the maintenance of the Church. 
We, with the sure foundation of the Christian 
Church, and in: accordance with the higher 


in his errors still remains man, and an ob- 
ject of esteem and love, see in it impatience.” 
— Difficult though it may be under present 
circumstances, considering the development 
which doctrine has taken, in many particular 
cases rightly to apply what is here said by 
John, yet it must still be regarded as a valid 
maxim, not only that the Christian should 
remain conscious of the antithesis between 
anti-Christianity and Christianity, but also 
that he should not deny this consciousness in 
his conduct towards his neighbor. — Besser 
unjustifiably seeks to make use of the expres- 
sion of the apostle as a weapon against union. 


VERSE 13. 647 


sister had either already died, or was not with her children near the apostle, 
as he would otherwise certainly have mentioned her.—Such uncertain 
hypotheses are removed by the correct explanation of κυρία; now it is self- 
evident that the ἀδελφῇ is the church from which John wrote this Epistle, 
—and the τέκνα, therefore, are its individual members; on τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς, comp. 
ver. 1. 


θ48 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


*Iwavvov ἐπιστολὴ τρίτη. 


The superscription runs in B, δὲ: ᾿Ιωάννου y; in C: ἴω. ἐπιστολὴ y; in G: 
ἐπιστολὴ τρίτη τοὺ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου ‘lwavvov; in the Elzey. ed.: ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου 
ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ τρίτη. 


Ver. 3. δαὶ omits yap. — Ver. 4. In some min. is found, plainly as a correction, 
ταύτης instead of τού των. --- Instead of ἔχω, B (teste Majo) has ἔχων (not men- 
tioned by Buttm.), and instead of χαράν, B, 7, 35, Vulg., etc., read xapiv; Buttm. 
has retained the Rec. — Instead of the Rec. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (according to C**, G, K, 
τὲ, Thph., Oec.), A, B, C*, etc., read ἐν τῇ ἀλ., which Lachm. and Tisch. have 
accepted; the omission of the article is explained by the preceding ἐν ἀλ,, ver. 3. 
— Ver. 5. ἐργάσῃ] Rec., according to B, C, G, K, S, all the min., Thph., Oec. 
(Tisch.), Lachm., following A, Vulg. (operaris), has accepted ἐργάζῃ, which, 
however, appears to be only an alteration on account of the present 7oei¢, — 
Instead of καὶ εἰς τοὺς ξένους (Rec., according to G, K, etc.), καὶ τοῦτο ξένους 
must be read, with A, B, C, 8, etc., most of the versions, Lachm., and Tisch. — 
Ver. 6. Ewald arbitrarily conjectures: oi¢ ἐμαρτύρησα. --- The reading of C, 
moinoac προπέμψεις, is clearly a correction.— Ver. 7. After ὀνόματος the 
Elzev. ed., following several min. and some vss., has αὐτοῦ, which is found in 
none of the greater MSS. (nor, according to Tisch. 7, in B). Buttm. has 
accepted this αὐτοῦ, and that, too, as the reading of B; Tisch. 2 also ascribes it 
to this codex, but with the remark: 6 sil. collat. Reiche says: Lachm.: falso 
codicem B pro C avrov citat. Codicem B αὐτοὺ non habere nunc e Maji atque 
Kuenii et Cobeti edit. constat.—On the reading ἐξῆλθαν (Lachm., Tisch. 7), 
comp. 2 John 7. — Instead of ἐθνῶν, Rec., according to G, K, etc., Lachm. and 
Tisch. have with justice accepted ἐθνικῶν, which is the reading of A, B, C, καὶ, 
and many others; Reiche, however, regards ἐθνὼν as the original reading. — 
—Ver. 8. ἀπολαμβάνειν] Rec., following C**, G, K, etc. Instead of it A, B, 
ΟἿ, 8, etc., read ὑπολαμβάνειν, which Lachm. and Tisch. have accepted, and in 
favor of which Reiche also declares himself. Both words are, in the significa- 
tion in which they are here used, az, λεγόμενα; the overwhelming authorities are 
in favor of ix0A, — Instead of τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, 8* reads τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, clearly a correc- 
tion. — Ver. 9. After ἔγραψα, A, B, Ὁ, 8 (Lachm., Tisch.), read τι. The Rec. 
is only supported by G, K, some min., ete.! Two min., 29, 66**, have ἄν τι; 
and some others ἄν without τι; the Vulg.: scripsissam forsitan. These readings 
have arisen from an erroneous interpretation of the thought. — Ver. 10. Instead 
of βουλομένους is found in C, several min., Vulg.: ἐπιδεχομένους; a correc- 


1 Reiche incorrectly says : ‘* Lectiones variae reads ἔγραψας (Reiche), has not been ob- 
a rec. discedentes singulae non satis testatae | served either by Tischendorf 7 or by Butt- 
sunt,”? whereas the overwhelming evidences mann. Should it be the case, it must be 
decide in favor of τι being original. That B regarded merely as a clerical error. 


VERSES 1, 2. 649 


tion. In, the preposition ἐκ is wanting before τῆς ἐκκλησίας. --- Ver. 11. The δέ 
between ὁ and κακοποιῶν (Rec.) is, according to almost all the authorities, to be 
deleted; it was interpolated to mark the antithesis. — Ver. 12. In Cod. C, to 
the words τῆς ἀληθείας, τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ is further prefixed. In A the reading 
is uncertain; according to the statement of Tisch., A* probably reads é« «Ay- 
σίας instead of ἀληθείας: Lachm. states the reading thus: “ἀλη. . . θίας corr. 
A,... ag pr. Α.᾽ - οἴδατε]. Rec., according to G, K, ete., several vss., Thph., 
Oec. (Tisch.). In A, B, C, 8, Vulg., etc., on the other hand, is found oidac, 
which Griesb. recommended, and Lachm. accepted. —If the overwhelming 
evidences were not for οἶδας, we might regard it as a correction, as οἴδατε 
seemed objectionable in an Epistle addressed to one person. — Ver. 13. Instead, 
of γράφειν (Rec., according to G, K, etc., Oec.), the reading of A, B, Ὁ, δὶ, ete., 
almost all versions, Thph.: γράψαι σοι, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., is to be 
preferred. — The reading in A, οὐκ ἐβουλήθην, instead of ov θέλω, has origi- 
nated in 2 John 12. — Though the Rec. (according to G, ΚΑ, etc., Thph., Oec.) 
has γράψαι at the close of the verse, A, B, Ὁ, &, etc., here read γράφειν, which is 
justly accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. The pronoun ow is put after the verb in 
A, ete., Vulg., etc. (Lachm.); most of the authorities, however, decide in favor 
of its position before the verb (Tisch.). — Ver. 14. Instead of the Rec. ideiv σε 
(G, K, &, several versions, etc.), ce ἐδεὲν is probably to be read, with A, B, Ὁ, 
ete. (Lachm., Tisch.).— Ver. 15. Instead of of φίλοι, A has of ddeAgoi; 
clearly a correction. —X, sol., has ἄσπασαι for aorafov. —Only a few codd. 
(G, some min., etc.) have at the close the word ἀμῆν. ---- The subscription runs 
in A, B, &, Ἰωάννου y; in G, ἐπιστολὴ y τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου ᾿Ιωάννου: in other 
codd., still more prolix. 


Ver. 1. Superscription. On ὁ πρεσβύτερος, see the Introd., sec. 1. 
With regard to the person of Caius, nothing particular is known; that he is 
identical with one of two (or three) Caiuses who are mentioned as friends 
and helpers of the Apostle Paul (comp. Acts xix. 29, xx. 4; 1 Cor. i. 14; 
and Rom. xvi. 23), is at least improbable. It is also uncertain whether 
he is the same person as the Caius who, according to the Constitt. Apostol., 
vii. 46, is said to have been appointed by John as bishop in Pergamos (Mill., 
Whiston). That he was presbyter of the Church (Kostlin), does not follow 
from ver. 8. The apostle expresses his love to Caius in the epithet τῷ dya- 
πητῷ; how sincere it was, is shown by the fact that he not only adds: ὃν ἐγὼ 
ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (comp. with this 2 John 1), but also addresses him three 
times in the Epistle by ἀγαπητέ. On ἐν ἀλ. Oecumenius here well observes: 
ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ἀγαπᾷ ὁ κατὰ Κύριον ἀγαπὼν ἐνδιαθέτῳ ἀγάπῃ. 

Ver. 2. Instead of with the usual formula of greeting, the Epistle begins 
with a wish for the welfare of Caius.— περὶ πάντων]. παντων is not mascu- 
line (Paulus: “on account of all, i.e., for the good of all’), but neuter. 
Several commentators, Beza, Castellio, Wahl, Liicke (first edition), Ewald, 
Diisterdieck, etc., interpret περὶ πάντων Ξε πρὸ πάντων here, and connect it 


1 Liicke thinks that if he was one of these, however, regards it as probable that he was 
he would only be the Caius of Derbe (Acts the same as the Caius mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 
xx. 4); yet he states no reason for this opin- 14, whom he distinguishes as the Corinthian 
ion, but merely refers to Wolf’s Curae; Wolf, Caius from the Caius of Derbe. 


650 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


with εὔχομαι ; but usus loquendi and thought are opposed to this. Although 
περί in some passages in Homer indicates precedence, yet this signification is 
utterly foreign to the LXX. and the N. T.; besides, it is not to be supposed 
that the apostle would have so specially emphasized the wish referring to 
the external circumstances of life; περὶ πάντων, with most of the conmen- 
tators (even Liicke, second edition), is rather to be connected with σε εὐο- 
δοῦσθαι (though not with ὑγιαίνειν) in its usual signification, “in regard to 
all things.”’ In reply to the objection which has been made out of the posi- 
tion of the words, Liicke with justice remarks: “it is put first with rhetor- 
ical emphasis, corresponding to ἡ ψυχῆ, which is compared with it, at the 
end.” --- εὔχομαι, it is true, means also “to pray” (Jas. v. 15), but usually, 
“to wish,” so here also; that with John it was an εὔχεσθαι πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, is 
self-evident. —ce εὐοδοῦσθαι καὶ ὑγιαίνειν). εὐοδοῦσθαι, besides here, is 
only found in Rom. i. 10 and 1 Cor. xvi. 2; in both passages it means, “to 
be fortunate” (see Meyer on Rom. i. 10); similarly it signifies here also pros- 
perity; comp. the detailed account of the usage of the word in the classics 
and in the LXX. by Liicke and Diisterdieck on this passage. — The apostle 
wishes that it may go well and happily with Caius in all external circum- 
stances; that it is just these he has in view in πάντων, is clear from the con- 
trasted ψυχή. By means of ὑγιαίνειν (= “to be in health,” comp. Luke v. 31, 
vii. 10, and other passages) one element of the general εὐοδοῦσθαι is brought 
specially out. It is not to be inferred from the wish which is expressed, that 
Caius had been ill (Diisterdieck). — καθὼς εὐοδοῦταί cov ἡ ψυχῆ]. By the pros- 
perity of the soul of Caius, to which the external welfare was to correspond, 
it is not the natural condition, as the sequel shows, but the Christian state 
of salvation, that is to be understood. 

Ver. 3. Confirmation of the foregoing statement. —éyapyy γὰρ λίαν, see 
on 2 John 4. When and why the apostle felt such a joy, is stated in the two 
following participial sentences, of which, however, as far as the sense is con- 
cerned, the first is subordinate to the second; ἃ Mons: lorsque les fréres qui 
sont venus ont rendu témoignage. —uaprrpeiv, with the dative of the thing, 
“to testify of any thing;” comp. vv. 6, 12; John iii. 26, v. 33, xviii. 37. — 
By σου τῇ ἀληθείᾳ it is not the truth in the objective sense (Calovius: veritas 
evangelii) in so far as Caius had received it, but the truth in the subjective 
sense, that is to be understood (so also Liicke, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.): 
the inner Christian life, which is born of the truth, is itself truth; some 
commentators incorrectly limit the idea to a single element of it; e.g., 
Lorinus to liberalitas.— The addition, καθὼς od ἐν ἀληθείᾳ περιπατεῖς (Comp. 
2 John 4), serves as an explanation of the preceding: “namely how thou,” 
etc. In the fact that the brethren testified that Caius was walking in the 
truth, they bore a testimony to the truth that was in him. The sentence is 
not “a direct sentence” (Baumgarten-Crusius: “as thou indeed art living 
in accordance with the truth”) by which “John adds his testimony to that 
of the brethren (Besser) in order to confirm it” (Ebrard), but “an indirect 
sentence ” (Briickner) dependent on μαρτυρούντων, on which a special emphasis 
is laid, as also the ἀκούω in ver. 4 shows (so also Diisterdieck, Braune). σύ 
is emphatically used in contrast to those who do not walk ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 


VERSES 5, 6. 651 

Ver. 4 serves as confirmation of ἐχάρην λίαν. ---- μειζύτεραν]. Grotius: est 
ad intendendam significationem comparativus e comparativo factus; similar 
formations occur in the classical language of poets and later writers; see 
Winer, p. 67 [E. T., 69]; in the N. T., comp. Eph. 111. 8. ---- τούτων οὐκ ἔχω 
χαρὰν iva, x.7.2, —“ I have not a greater joy than this, that ;” τούτων is not used 
for ταύτης, but “as an indefinite word is to be connected with the more 
definite iva” (Liicke); some commentators incorrectly supply “7” before 
iva. John xy. 13 is to be compared with this passage; only that ταύτης is 
used there, but it does not refer, however, to something preceding, but finds 
its explanation in the following ἕνα. ---- τὰ ἐμὰ τέκνα, not “all Christians ;” 
but neither merely the converts of John, but the members of the churches 
which were under the special fatherly direction of the apostle (so also 
Braune). 

Vy. 5, 6. Praise of Caius for his φιλοξενία, induced by that which he ex- 
hibited towards the brethren (ver. 3).— πιστὸν ποιεῖς ὃ ἐὰν, κ.τ.λ.]1. By πιστόν 
the conduct (ποιεῖς) of Caius, which he had shown towards the brethren, 
is described as faithful, i.e., corresponding to the Christian profession. 
Ebrard’s view, that πιστὸν ποιεῖν is = the classical πιστὸν (= πίστιν) ποιεῖσθαι 
in the sense of “to give a pledge of faithfulness, a guaranty,” cannot be 
grammatically justified. By ἐάν (= ἄν) the idea is generalized: “ every thing 
whatever.” — εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τοῦτο ξένους]. With the construction ἐργάζεσθαι 
εἰς, comp. Matt. xxvi. 10. By καὶ τοῦτο it is brought out that the ἀδελφοί to 
whom Caius is showing his love are ξένοι; even with the reading καὶ εἰς τοὺς 
ξένους the thought remains the same: καί, namely, is epexegetically used = 
“and that too;” as the ξένοι were Christians, they cannot be distinguished 
from the ἀδελφοί. Liicke takes καί in a specializing sense, “and particularly 
or especially ;” but it is not brotherly love in general, but just the φιλοξενία, 
that is the subject here. That is to say, the apostle in this praise has 
specially in view what.Caius had done to the brethren who had come to 
him (the Ap.: ver. 3), and who are also spoken of in vv. 6 and 7; these, 
however, were éévou.2— Ver. 6. of ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας]. 
That οἱ “dissociates the concrete representation of some from the generic 
representation of éévo.” (De Wette), is incorrect: it rather refers directly to 
the previously mentioned strange brethren. By ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας we are not 
to think of the church to which Caius belonged, but of that in which John 
was sojourning. --- οὖς καλῶς ποιήσεις, x.7.2.]. The same brethren that had 
come from Caius to John wanted to return thither again, in order from 
thence to continue their missionary journey (ver. 7). John now recom- 
mends them to the loving care of Caius. — otc are not others (De Wette), 


1 In opposition to Meyer, who says on the 
passage cited, ‘‘the usual view, according to 
which ἵνα is taken as the explanation of ταύτης, 
does not correspond to the idea of purpose 
which is contained in iva,” it may be observed 
that in the wsus loguendi of the N. T., ἵνα has 
by no means retained the idea of purpose in 
its distinctness, aud often serves, in reference 


to the demonstrative pronoun, to state the 
meaning of the latter. 

2 The present ποιεῖς is not opposed to this 
view, as it would seem to be; it is explained 
by the fact that the apostle regards the single, 
special case, as an evidence of the φιλοξενία of 
Caius in general. 


652 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


but the same as were spoken of in the preceding sentence. The combina- 
tion of the future ποιήσεις and the aorist participle προπέμψας is strange, as 
the two verbs do not denote two different actions, but the καλῶς ποιεῖν 
consists in the προπέμπειν ; it is different in Mark xiii. 13, Acts xxiv. 25, 
Rom. xv. 28, where two different actions are placed in connection with one 
another, and the aorist participle is used in the sense of the fut. exacti (see 
Winer, p. 521 [E. T., 342]). This has not been properly noticed by the 
commentators. The explanation of Diisterdieck: “The aorist form is to 
be explained by the fact that the good deed will consist in this, that Caius 
will have worthily brought the brethren forward,” does not solve the diffi- 
culty, as the good deed consists in the bringing them forward itself. The 
apostle may have used the aorist, however, in the feeling that “the action of 
Caius is only completed when he has accomplished the equipment and escort 
of the brethren” (Braune). The same connection is found in Eurip., Orest., 
1210 ff.: eiruyjoouev . . . ἑλόντες, Which Matthiae (Ausf. Gramm., second 
edition, p. 1087) translates, “if we are so fortunate as to take;”?! in 
accordance with which we may translate here also, “thou shalt act worthily 
to accompany them.” Luther, incorrectly, “thou hast done well that thou 
hast sent them on their journey;” in the revised edition, 1867, correctly, 
“thou shalt do well if thou sendest them on their journey.” Ebrard 
arbitrarily conjectures, ἐποίησας. ---- ΤΌ is quite evident from the connection 
with the sequel, that by καλῶς ποιῆσεις John wants to encourage Caius to the 
προπέμπειν. The reading ποιῆσας προπέμψεις means: “whom thou, after thou 
hast treated them well, shalt bring forward on their journey.” With καλῶς 
ποιεῖν, comp. Acts x. 18, Phil. iv. 14; with προπέμπειν = “to fit out for a 
journey,” Rom. xv. 24, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 16, Tit. iii. 13. —déiwe τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. 
1 Thess. ii. 12; Col. i. 10) does not belong to καλ. ποιῆσεις, but to προπέμψας 
= “as worthy of God, with all care and love” (Liicke). 

Ver. 7. Confirmation of the exhortation that has been uttered: the 
brethren deserve such help, for, ete. ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐξῆλθαν]. With 
the Rec. reading, ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, αὑτοῦ refers back to τοῦ Θεοῦ; but this αὐτοῦ 
is to be regarded as an interpolation; τὸ ὄνομα (without αὐτοῦ) is neither 
‘the Christian doctrine or religion,” nor “the name of the brethren ”’ 
(Paulus: “because they were called missionaries”), but “the name of 
Christ” (Liicke, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Braune, etc.), as 
in Acts v. 41 (according to the correct reading); comp. also Jas. ii. 7, and 
Ignatii ep. ad Ephes., cap. 3 and 7. — ὑπέρ is here used in the same sense as 
in Rom. i. 6, and ἐξέρχεσθαι as in Acts xv. 40 (Liicke, De Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Sander, Braune, etc.); so that the sense is: for the sake of the 
name of Christ, i.e., for the spread of it, they went forth (as missionaries). 
Several commentators (Beza, Schmidius, Bengel, Carpzovius, Wolf) connect 
ἐξῆλθαν With ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνικῶν [ἔθνων͵ in the sense: expulsi sunt a paganis: but 
this idea is arbitrarily imported into ἐξῆλθαν ; 5 besides, the connection with 


1 The whole passage in Euripides runs: — 2 Grotius, indeed, correctly connects azo 
ἥξει δ᾽ ες οἰκους Ἑρμιονὴ τίνος χρόνου; τ. ἐθν. With λαμβάνοντες, but interprets ἐξῆλ- 
ὡς τἄλλα γ᾽ ειπας, ειἰπερ ευτυχήσομεν, θον: “ἃ Judaea ejecti sunt per Judaeos in- 


κάλλισθ,, ἑλοντες σκυμνον ανοσιου δοκῶ. credulos;’’ the erroneous idea that the apostle 


VERSES 8, 9, 10. 653 


ἀπὸ τ. ἐθν. is unsuitable, because then the words μηδὲν λαμβάνοντες remain too 
indefinite. The assertion of Wolf, that λαμβάνειν is not construed with azé, 
is refuted by Matt. xvii. 25. By the addition, μηδὲν λαμβάνοντες ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἐθνικῶν, the necessity of assisting these brethren is brought out. The present 
participle is either used in the imperfect sense (ver. 3), or—as is more 
probable — it is used in order to indicate the μηδὲν λαμβάνειν ἀπὸ τ. ἐθν. as the 
maxim of these missionaries (so also Diisterdieck and Braune). It is very 
usual to regard this maxim as the same as that which Paul took for his, and 
of which he speaks in passages like 1 Cor. ix. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff., xii. 16 ff.; 
1 Thess. ii. 9 ff. ; but ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνικῶν (= ἔθνων, comp. Matt. vi. 7, xviii. 17) 
does not suit this: the maxim of Paul was not to make the care for his 
support an obligation on the churches among which he labored, but here it 
is heathen that are spoken of. It was by these that these missionary brethren 
would not allow themselves to be assisted, because they did not want to 
build up Christ’s work by the wealth of the heathen, but trusted to Chris- 
tians that in Christian love they would provide for them what was needful.! 

Ver. 8 indicates “the highest point of view for Christian φιλοξενία ᾽ 
(Liicke).— ἡμεῖς οὖν]. ἡμεῖς emphatically forms the antithesis to οἱ ἐθνικοί ; 
as they take nothing from the Gentiles, we Christians are bound to take an 
interest in them; ὀφείλομεν ὑπολαμβάνειν τοὺς τοιούτου]. ὑπολαμβάνειν is just 
as little used in the N. T., in the sense of hospitable reception (Occ. 
ὑποδέχεσθαι) as the ἀπολαμβάνειν that is found in the Rec. In the classics 
it appears (but not ἀπολαμβάνειν) both in this meaning and in the modified 
signification, “to support” (so in Strabo: oi εὔποροι τοὺς ἐνδεεῖς ὑπολαμβάνουσι) ; 
so it is to be taken here also, and in connection with it the play upon words, 
between λαμβάνοντες and imo... λαμβάνειν, must not be overlooked. —iva 
συνεργοὶ γινώμεθα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ] Confirmation of ὀφείλομεν. The dative τῇ ἀληθ. 
is not dependent on ow; Vulg., ut cooperatores simus veritatis; Luther, “so 
that we may be helpers of the truth” (so Grotius, Bengel, Besser, etc.); but 
it is the dative of reference, and σὺν refers back to τοὺς τοιούτους (Briickner, 
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune): “so that we may be their fellow-workers for 
the truth;” comp. 2 Cor. viii. 23, Col. iv. 11, where instead of the dative 
the preposition εἰς is used. 

Vv. 9,10. Notice of Diotrephes. — ἔγραψά τι τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ! The τι, which 
according to the authorities is probably genuine, does not serve, as Liicke 
rightly remarks, to intensify = “something important,” but rather to weaken 
= “something, a little.” — The reading, ἔγραψα ἄν (Vulg.: scripsissem forsitan), 
has originated in the idea that the apostle would not write an epistle, of the 
unsuccessfulness of which he was previously convinced. The church to 
which the apostle wrote is not that from which the brethren (ver. 7) went 
forth (Bengel, Besser), but that to which Caius belonged. ‘The opinion 
that this writing is the so-called First Epistle of John (Wolf, Storr, etc.) is 
just as untenable as the view that it is the Second Epistle of John (Ewald, 


considered the Jews as the antithesis of the 1 Ewald unsuitably deduces this maxim 
Gentiles has clearly led him to this arbitrary from the command of Christ, Matt. x. 8-10. 
interpretation, 


654 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Besser, etc.), for the contents of these two have nothing in common with 
the circumstances which are here alluded to. This writing must, according 
to the context in which it is mentioned, have treated of the reception or 
support of the missionary brethren. If it was only such a short occasional 
writing, it is easily intelligible how it may have been lost; besides, however, 
it is natural to suppose that it was withheld from the church by Diotrephes. 
— ἀλλ᾽ ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν Διοτρεφὴς οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται ἡμᾶς]. In these words the 
apostle expresses the experience which he had had of Diotrephes. It may 
be assumed that the apostle wrote to the church of Diotrephes in regard to 
the reception of the missionary brethren, and that the bearers of the epistle 
reported to him the conduct of Diotrephes, which he now tells to Caius. 
As to the more particular circumstances of Diotrephes, nothing further is 
known. From what John says about him, it cannot be inferred either that 
he was presbyter, or that he was deacon of the church; yet the contrary con- 
clusion cannot either be drawn. When Grotius represents him as an oppo- 
nent of the Jewish Christians, and others, on the contrary, regard him as a 
false teacher of Jewish or Gnostic views, these are unfounded conjectures ; 
if either the one or the other were the case, John would certainly have indi- 
cated it. John only accuses him of one thing, namely, the φιλοπρωτεύειν, from 
which his unchristian conduct resulted. φιλοπρωτεύειν is a Gn, Aey.; yet 
in the later Greek writers φιλόπρωτος and φιλοπρωτεία appear. The scholion 
in Matthiae rightly explains ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων by ὁ ὑφαρπάζων τὰ mpureia: he 
ambitiously arrogated to himself the highest authority in the church, which 
made himself an opponent of the apostle. By what means he was able to 
obtain validity for this assumption, we do not know; perhaps by assembling 
the church in his house. —airod refers to ἐκκλησίᾳ, as a collective idea. — 
οὐκ ἐπιδέχεσθαι ἡ μᾶς]. ἐπιδέχεσθαι, in the N. T. only here and in ver. 10, 
means “to receive;’’ it is incorrect to change ἡμᾶς into “our epistles or 
exhortations ” (Grotius, Liicke, De Wette, etc.). In the fact that Diotrephes 
rejected the communication of the apostle, and refused to receive the brethren 
recommended in it, he justly obtained rejection for himself (so also Braune). 
It is unnecessary, therefore, to ascribe to ἐπιδέχεσθαι here the modified mean- 
ing, “to accept, to let pass,” in which it appears in the classics. Ver. 10. 
διὰ τοῦτο, ἐὰν ἔλθω, ὑπομνῆσω, k.t.A.]. Though, in the absence of John, 
Diotrephes resisted his authority, yet John hoped by his presence to obtain 
for it its due weight, and therefore he had resolved to come himself to that 
church, and personally to oppose the intrigues of Diotrephes. — With ὑπομνήσω, 
which is here used with the secondary signification of blame, it is not neces- 
sary to supply αὐτόν ; although Diotrephes is meant, yet John did not write 
αὐτόν, because he had in view at the same time all those who adhered to him 
(so Braune, correctly); comp. 2 Tim. ii. 14. In what the ἔργα of Diotrephes, 
to which the apostle intends the ὑπομιμνήσκειν to refer, consisted, the follow- 
ing participial clauses state.1— λόγος πονηροῖς φλυαρῶν ἡμᾶς]. φλυαρεῖν (in the 


1 Ewald strangely overlooks the following on this painful incident; he breaks off ab 
words when, after translating the preceding ruptly, to turn back to the good, exclaiming, 
words, he says: ‘‘ But the author cannot dwell Beloved! ” ete, 


VERSE il. 655 


N. T. a ἄπ. λεγ. ; the adj. φλύαρος, 1 Tim. v. 13) = nugari ; Oecumenius para- 
phrases it by λοιδορεῖν, κακολογεῖν: this, however, does not express the idea of 
the chatter that says nothing, which is contained in φλυαρεῖν. The verb, in 
itself intransitive, is here construed with the accusative (as θριαμβεύω, Col. 
ii. 15; μαθητεύω, Matt. xxviii. 19), thus, “he prates against us slanderously 
with wicked words.” — καὶ μὴ ἀρκούμενος ἐπὶ τούτοις]. Diotrephes did not con- 
tent himself with φλυαρεῖν against the apostle alone (ἀρκεῖσθαι is only here 
used in construction with ἐπί; elsewhere the dative is found; Luke iii. 14; 
Heb. xiii. 5, and other passages); he injured the brethren 8180. --- οὔτε αὐτὸς 
ἐπιδέχεται τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ, x.7.2.]. With οὔτε the following καί corresponds; 
αὐτός is contrasted with τοὺς βουλομένους. ---- There is no reason to take ἐπιόέ- 
χεσθαι here in a different sense from that of ver. 9, although it takes a dif- 
ferent bearing towards different persons, one way in regard to the apostle, 
another way in regard to the ἀδελφοί, who are here mentioned, and who are 
to be regarded as ξένοι; they are the same as were spoken of previously 
(ver. 7, etc.).— With τοὺς βουλομένους we are to understand ἐπιδέχεσθαι 
αὐτούς (C reads just: ἐπιδεχομένους instead of Bova.); there were therefore some 
persons in the church who were ready to receive the strangers, in opposition 
to Diotrephes; but Diotrephes did not permit it, nay; he opposed them with 
all force.— καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει]. It is not τοὺς ἀδελφούς, but 
τοὺς βουλομένους, that is the object. —éxBurrecy ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας signifies 
expulsion from the church, as the object is not τοὺς ἀδελφούς, but τοὺς Bovio- 
μένους ; the expression is arbitrarily weakened if we understand by it merely 
that “ Diotrephes no longer admitted those who opposed him to the meetings 
of the church which he held in his house” (Braune). The common opinion 
is, that Diotrephes had actually already expelled some persons from the 
church, whether irregularly by means of faction, or with arrogant violence, 
or whether by intrigues he had brought about resolutions of the church to 
that effect; but it is also possible that the apostle describes as an act of 
Diotrephes what he in his pride had threatened to do, so that the expression 
then is one of keen irony. —If arbitrary hypotheses are not admitted, we 
must regard as the cause of the behavior of Diotrephes only his vanity — 
which showed itself in his φιλοπρωτεύειν. By the way in which a part of the 
church (especially Caius) had interested itself in the strangers, and had been 
mentioned in John’s communications on the subject, Diotrephes, in his vanity, 
had probably felt offended, and this had excited his anger, which led him to 
the conduct which John rebukes in such simple but severe words. 

Ver. 11. From the special case the apostle deduces an exhortation of 
general import. — μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν]. On μιμεῖσθαι, comp. espe- 
cially Heb. xiii. 7.— The expressions, τὸ κακόν and τὸ ἀγαθόν, can so much 
the less be regarded as un-Johannean (De Wette), as in John v. 29 the cor- 
responding antithesis, τὰ ἀγαθά and τὰ φαῦλα, is found, and in John xviii. 23 
the neuter singular τὸ κακόν. The additional sentence, ὁ ἀγαθοποιῶν... τὸν 
Θεόν, expresses the same thought that frequently appears in the First Epistle 
of John, especially in chap. iii. 6. —The ideas, dya@oroeiv and κακοποιεῖν, are 
to be taken quite generally, and must not be limited to the special virtue of 
benevolence (a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, Paulus); comp. 1 Pet. ii. 14, 15, 20, 


656 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


iii. 6, 17.— The corresponding expressions, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι and éwpa- 
κέναι τὸν Θεόν, are used also in the First. Epistle of John; but why the 
Johannean οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν Θεόν (1 John iv. 8), should be more conformable to 
the style of John than the equally Johannean οὐχ ἑώρακε τὸν Θεόν (1 John 
iii. 6), as Liicke and De Wette think, is not quite perceptible. 

Ver. 12. As the apostle, by μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακόν, has warned Caius against 
imitation of Diotrephes, so he now puts Demetrius before him as an example 
for imitation —corresponding to ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν. Who this Demetrius was, 
however, and where he had his abode, is not stated. Ebrard thinks that he 
had been one of the βουλόμενοι (ver. 10) in the church of Diotrephes, and had 
perhaps been excommunicated by him; but in that case Caius must have 
known him, so that he did not require this strong testimony of the apostle 
in his favor; the view that he was the bearer of the Epistle (Diisterdieck, 
Liicke, etc.) is more probable. — μεμαρτύρηται refers — in accordance with 
John’s usage of the perfect—not merely to a past, but also to a present 
record. μαρτυρεῖσθαι frequently appears in the same absolute way as here, 
especially in the Acts; comp. chap. vi. 3, x. 22, and passim. — πάντων is not 
to be extended to the heathen, with Oecumenius and Theophylact, but refers 
to the church to which Demetrius belonged; Ebrard incorrectly understands 
by it “the brethren,” vv. 10, 7,5; the apostle would have distinctly men- 
tioned them, and besides, the πάντων, which is clearly used emphatically, 
would be unsuitable in reference to them. — kal in’ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας]. 
Whilst the commentators are agreed in this, that the truth is here personi- 
fied, they deviate widely from one another in their more particular definition 
of the idea; most of them understand by it the life of Demetrius as that 
which testifies for him, whether they interpret ἀλήθεια = reality (Hornejus: 
ipsa rei veritas; Grotius: res ipsae) or as the life itself, in so far as it is a 
testimony to his virtue (Beausobre: c’est a dire, que sa conduite est un témoin 
réel de sa vertu). This, however, is incorrect, as both the expression itself 
(αὐτὴ ἡ ἁλήθεια) and also its position (between πάντες and ἡμεῖς) indicate that 
the apostle meant by 7 ἀλήθεια something objectively contrasted with Deme- 
trius. Diisterdieck (with whom Braune agrees) has rightly perceived this; 
but as he at the same time retains the reference to the life, he finds the 
testimony of the objective Christian truth in the fact that it gives command- 
ments to man, and that, inasmuch as Demetrius fulfils them, it is by these 
commandments that the truth bears a good testimony to him. But apart 
from the fact that this introduction of the commandments cannot be justi- 
fied, the whole interpretation has something too artificial to permit of its 
being regarded as correct. The hypothetical interpretation of Liicke: “if 
the infallible Christian truth, comp. ver. 3, itself were asked, it would give 
him a good testimony ” (similarly Schlichting), does not suit the positive 
μεμαρτύρηται. It is too far-fetched, with Baumgarten-Crusius, to regard the 
result of the Christian activity of Demetrius as the testimony of the truth 
to him. A simple, clear idea would be brought out if, with Sander, we 
could regard it as “a special testimony which John had received through 
the Holy Ghost in reference to Demetrius;” but there is no justification for 
this. The correct way will be to interpret ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας in close con- 


VERSES 13, 14, 15. 657 


nection with ὑπὸ πάντων, and to conclude that the apostle adds the former in 
order to bring out the fact that the good report of all has its origin not 
merely in their human judgment, but in the testimony of the ἀλήθεια which 
dwells in them (so also Briickner); and that the expression αὐτὴ 7 ἀλήθεια is 
not merely a personification, but is a description of the Holy Ghost (comp. 
1 John v. 6: τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια). The opinion that αὐτὴ ἡ ἀλήθεια, in 
contrast with πάντες, cannot be the truth that produces their testimony, and 
that testifies for Demetrius (Ebrard,! Braune), is refuted by John xv. 26, 27, 
as here, in a quite similar way, the testimony of the Spirit of truth is con- 
joined with the testimony of the disciples, the latter being produced and 
confirmed by the former. — To the testimony of all, the apostle further 
specially adds his own: καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ μαρτυροῦμεν]. By καὶ... δέ a stronger 
emphasis is laid on ἡμεῖς. ---- With καὶ οἶδας, «.7.2., comp. John xix. 35, xxi. 24. 
— By the reading, οἴδατε, Caius and his friends are addressed together. 

Vy. 13, 14. The same thoughts as in 2 John 12; even the expression is 
little different; this agreement is most naturally explained by the contem- 
poraneousness of the two Epistles. — πολλὰ εἶχον γράψαι]. “I would have many 
things to write to thee, but. . .;”? as in Acts xxv. 22; comp. Winer, p. 265 
(E. T., 282); A. Buttmann, p. 187 (E. T., 216 f.) (De Wette); an ἄν is not 
omitted. Diisterdieck and Ebrard translate: “I had much to write,” unsuit- 
ably, because the apostle is not speaking of the past, but of the present. — 
Instead of paper (Second John), it is the κάλαμος, “the writing-reed,” that is 
mentioned as the writing material along with the ink. — On ἐλπίζω δὲ, κ,τ.1.» 
see ἐὰν ἔλθω, ver. 10. 

Ver. 15. εἰρηνη σοι]. The blessing at the end of the First Epistle of 
Peter runs similarly; comp. besides, Gal. vi. 16; Eph. vi. 23; 2 Thess. 
ili. 16 (also Rom. xv. 33; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. xiii. 20). — 
donatovtai ce οἱ φίλοι, κιτλ. It is in harmony with the character of the 
Epistle, as a private communication, that John does not send greetings from 
the whole church, but from the special friends of Caius, and so also commis- 
sions him with greetings only to his (the apostle’s) φίλο. The latter was the 
more natural, as indeed a part of the church was at enmity with John. — 
On κατ᾽ ὄνομα, comp. John x. 3; it belongs to ἀσπάζου, and is = ὀνομαστί (see 
Meyer on this passage); the personal relationship is thereby emphasized, as 
Caius is to greet every one of the friends specially (by name). 


1 Ebrard’s view, that we are here ‘‘ to con- (!) in the fact that for the sake of the ἀλήθεια 
sider the truth as ὦ power and might showing he endured serious ill-treatment or suffering,” 
itself in the life of Demetrius; the truth which is clearly affected, apart from other defects, 
mightily showed itself in him in those days in by arbitrary importations. 
the relations with Diotrephes, without doubt 










apy tt χά 
Νέαν Megs rere 


ΣΥΝ Fd es 
Σαρρα 






hy £4 
κι 





a ‘ 
΄ Ἂ - 
7 ἂν ΑΝ 
' ' 4 aod 
+ ; ἢ Υ̓͂ 
ρ ͵ ῥ - 
»-Ν Γ . ἢ : - Ms 
: ΐ 
͵ ἴ ἣ 
es! Ὗ ‘ 
ι 4 ὼ r 
f ¥ Ὡ ἯΙ “es 
ine +o 
1 j ta 4 
nf 2 » } ᾿ ’ ᾽ Ν 
Ἷ ‘ 
i 
t 
ὃ 
ἐς 
᾿ 
Ὶ 
" : 
‘ ΕἾ : 
& 
- - r « , 
I ? ¥ ae 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


INTRODUCTION. 


SEC. 1.—AUTHOR AND READERS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Tue author to his name Jude subjoins the particular designations: 
"Inoov Χριστοῦ δοῦλος and ἀδελφὸς δὲ ᾿Ιακώβου͵ The first of these designations is 
no evidence against his apostleship, as Arnaud correctly observes (see 
Phil. i. 1; Philem. 1); but the second is, inasmuch as it is not credible 
that an apostle, in order to make himself known, should have named 
himself according to his relationship to another, whether that other be an 
apostle or not. It is true, in order to prove the identity of the author of 
this Epistle with the Apostle Jude, whom Matthew (x. 3) names Λεββαῖος 
(Rec. adds: ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Oaddaioc), and Mark (ili. 18) Ouddaioc, the fact has 
been appealed to that Luke (Acts i. 18; Luke vi. 16) calls him Ἰούδας 
Ἰακώβου; but it is arbitrary to supply to Ἰακώβου, ἀδελφός, instead of the 
usual supplement vioc; see Meyer on Luke vi. 16. It is to be observed, 
against Winer (Bibl. Realw., under the word Judas), who will supply ἀδελφός, 
because in Matt. x. 3 and Mark iii. 18, Lebbzus is directly united by καί 
with James as an apostolic pair, that this is properly only the case in the 
first passage; but in that very passage, where a brotherly relationship exists, 
as with Peter and Andrew, and with John and James, this is expressly 
stated; whilst Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew, Simon and 
Judas Iscariot, are united together by καί, without any assertion that these 
pairs so united are brothers. The very mode and manner, then, in which 
James the son of Alphzus, and Jude, are placed together in the apostolic 
lists, proves that they were not brothers. — Further, if it be possible that 
an apostle could refer to the apostles generally, as is done in this Epistle 
(vv. 17, 18), yet that mode of expression is more natural in the mouth of 
one who was not an apostle than in the mouth of an apostle. —Jude does 


not more definitely state who this James was, whom he calls his brother. 
659 


660 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


But doubtless he was that James who, from an early period, stood at the . 
head of the church in Jerusalem. — Since, then, from preponderating 
proofs (see Introduction, section 1, to commentary on the Epistle of James), 
it is to be assumed that this James, who was called the brother of the Lord, 
is not identical with the Apostle James the son of Alpheus,! it is also not 
to be doubted that Jude is not a brother of the latter, but of the former, 
and, consequently, likewise a brother of Jesus. That, nevertheless, he does 
not call himself the brother of Jesus, cannot appear strange, since the 
bodily relationship to the Lord must retire before the spiritual relationship, 
which he expresses by the appellation ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος; it is the same 
reason which induced James in his Epistle not to designate himself as a 
brother of the Lord.— We possess only very uncertain notices of the 
personal history and labors of Jude (for an account of them, see Arnaud), 
which are the less to be considered as historical, since they are not only 
frequently contradictory, but also in them the author of the Epistle and the 
Apostle Jude are confounded together. 

The readers, for whom this Epistle was primarily intended, are described 
only in the most general terms, and neither their locality nor their condition 
is definitely stated. There is no indication that the Epistle was written 
only to Jewish Christians. Arnaud, indeed, with truth remarks: “Jude 
expounds his proofs in a manner peculiar to the Jews. From the beginning 
to the end he uses their mode of speech and their manner of expressing an 


idea; he employs images and comparisons, makes allusions, and uses myths, 


1 Thiersch (Herst. des. Hist. Standp., etc., 
p. 430 f.) rightly observes: “If ever a critical 
view concerning historical persons was arti- 
ficial and unnatural, assuredly that is which 
regards the brothers of the Lord as the cousins 
of Jesus, the sons of Clopas and a Mary, a 
sister of the mother of Christ. Herder’s argu- 
ment against this view is so obvious and 
striking, that it is almost unintelligible how 
such an hypothesis, which does violence to a 
series of passages, should even down to our 
times be maintained by critics.””—If, on the 
contrary, Dietlein (*‘ Review of Arnaud’s Re- 
searches,”’ etc.,in the Allg. Repert. von Reuter, 
August, 1851) maintains the idea of the Mes- 
sianic family, in order to reckon among the 
ἀδελφοῖς, besides the cousins, also the uncle, 
etc., of Jesus, history is thereby subordinated 


to hypothesis. The same is the case when 


Schott maintains that ‘‘it is opposed to the 
spirit of the N. T. history of salvation, that an 
actual brother of the Lord should attain to 
such a high position in the church, as James 
obtained as chief of the church of Jerusalem; ” 
and when he declares that ‘‘it is a historical 
necessity that the actual brothers of Jesus 
should retire into the background.” The other 
proofs by which Schott, who considers the 


so-called ‘brothers of Jesus” as his actual 


brothers, will attempt to prove that the James 
and Jude here mentioned belong not to them 
but to the apostles, are not here, but in the 
commentary to the Epistle of James, dis- 
cussed; so also with regard to the view of 
Hofmann, who likewise regards the author 
of this Epistle and his brother James as the 
Apostles Jude and James. 


INTRODUCTION. 661 


traditions, and examples, which were familiar to them.” But all this might 
have its reason in the individuality of the writer, without being conditioned 
by a regard to the readers. Most expositors assume that the readers 
resided in Asia Minor; on the contrary, Schmidt, Credner, Augusti, Arnaud, 
and Wiesinger are of opinion that they are to be sought for in Palestine. 
The question cannot with certainty be decided. 


SEC. 2.— OBJECTS AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. TIME 
AND PLACE OF ITS COMPOSITION. 


The Object of the Epistle is the confirmation of the readers in the gospel 
published to them by the apostles, in opposition to certain intruders, who, 
abusing the liberty of the gospel, gave themselves up to immoral excesses, 
and even to blaspheming the divine majesty. De Wette, Schwegleér, 
Arnaud, Reuss, Bleek, Briickner, and Hofmann consider them to be only 
vicious men. On the contrary, Dorner (Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre von 
der Person Christi, ΤῊ]. i., p. 104) observes: “The opponents of Jude are 
not only corrupt in practice, but also heretical teachers.” They are not 
indeed described as actual false teachers; but yet from wv. 4, 8, 18, 19, we 
can hardly think otherwise than that their libertinism was conjoined with 
dogmatic (perhaps Gnostic) errors; on which account also Briickner states 
that “they had points which bordered on the dogmatic;” and Hofmann: 
says that “they screened their immoral conduct by blasphemous assump- 
tions.” Weiss (Petrin. Frage ii., in Stud. u. Krit., 1866, H. 2) calls them 
“ Libertines on principle.” That they attached themselves to a particular 
definite Gnostic system, for example, that of the Carpocratians (Clemens 
Alexandrinus), cannot be proved. Their tendency appears to have been 
related to the error of the Nicolaitanes and the Balaamites (Rev. ii.); 
(Thiersch, Wiesinger, Schott). Jude opposes to them simply the apostolic 
gospel, without particularly characterizing the points of their contradiction 
to it. 

It is peculiar to this Epistle, that passages occur in it which appear to 
be taken from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, or, if this should not be the 
case, at least to have arisen from an apocryphal tradition of Enoch; as 
the quotation contained in vv. 14, 15; the statement about the sin of the 


1 See also Ritschl, Abhandl. ὧδ. die im Br. retained only abstractly their principle that 
des Judas Charakterisirten Antinomisten in grace establishes freedom to practise immor- 
d. Stud. u. Krit., 1861, part I. p. 103 ff. The ality, has been justly rejected by Wiesinger 
opinion of Ritschl, that these heretics had as unwarrantable. 


662 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


angels and their punishment, ver. 6; the description of the false teachers, 
ver. 8; also the reference (ver. 9) to the apocryphal tradition of the contest 
of Michael with the Devil is peculiar.1 This admixture of apocryphal 
traits can, on an unprejudiced consideration, only serve to strengthen the 
conviction that the Epistle does not proceed from an apostle. 

The Train of Thought is as follows: After the address, in which the 
readers are only generally characterized as Christians, the author states 
that he esteemed it necessary to exhort them to continue in the faith 
delivered to them (ver. 3), and that because of certain intruders, whom he 
designates as lascivious men and deniers of Jesus Christ, whose condem- 
nation was certain (ver. 4). That this condemnation will come upon them, 
he confirms by three examples: that of the people delivered from Egypt, 
that of the fallen angels, and that of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha 
(vv. 5-7). These intruders are then described by two characteristics, namely, 
as defilers of the flesh and as despisers and blasphemers of heavenly 
dignities ; the greatness of their sin is brought prominently forward by 
comparison with the conduct of Michael in his contest with the Devil, and 
a woe is denounced upon them as those who walk in the way of Cain, . 
Balaam, and Korah (vv. 8-11). In the following verses (vv. 12, 13) the 
author proceeds with his description, adducing their debauchery at the 
Agapae, and representing in various figurative expressions their vain and 
impudent conduct, by which he is reminded of the judgment which awaits 
them, quoting for this purpose a saying of Enoch as a prophecy which 
holds good of them (vv. 14, 15). To this succeed some additional 
characteristics of those erroneous teachers, to which an exhortation to the 
readers is added to be mindful of the words of the apostles who have 
prophesied of the appearance of such mockers (vv. 16-18). After Jude, 
with another glance at his opponents, has exhorted his readers to keep 
themselves by faith and prayer in the love of God, and to wait for the 
mercy of Christ (vv. 19-21), he gives a short direction how to behave 
toward those who have been already perverted (vv. 22, 23). A doxology 
forms the conclusion of the Epistle (vv. 24, 25). 

The Epistle contains no other data for the determination of the time of 
its composition than the description of the heretics and the exhortation to 
attend to the preaching of the apostles; but from these it may be inferred 


1 Hofmann disputes this, maintaining that Acts vii. 22 f., xiii. 21; Gal. iv. 28; Heb. xi. 
in Jude there occurs only an interpretation or 87; 2 Tim. iii.8; although he grants that more 
expansion of what is stated in Scripture, and is signified in Jude than in these passages. 
which is as justified as that which occurs in 


INTRODUCTION. 663 


that it belongs not to the earlier, but, as most expositors assume,} to the later 
apostolic age; although “there is no necessity, with Reuss, to assign it to 
the extreme limits of the apostolic literature” (Briickner). Although in 
the Pastoral Epistles the immoral life of the heretics there attacked is 
censured, yet libertinism does not appear to have attained to the same 
stage of development as with the opponents of Jude; and Jude would 
hardly have appealed to the preaching of the apostles as a thing of the 
past, if the apostles were yet at the height of their apostolic activity. 
Bertholdt, Guericke, Stier, Arnaud, and others think, from the fact that 
there is no mention of the judgment of God on Jerusalem, that it is to be 
inferred that the Epistle was written before the destruction of that city, 
since Jude would certainly not have omitted this most fearful and most 
significant judgment, if it had already taken place, particularly as he 
mentions almost all the most noted examples of divine judgments. But 
this conclusion is very uncertain, especially as the hypothesis on which it 
is founded is incorrect. Jude takes at random only some of many examples, 
and indeed such —at least this is evidently the case with the judgment on 
the angels, and with that on Sodom and Gomorrha—as refer to a definite 
kind of sin, which is not applicable to the judgment on Jerusalem. He 
mentions neither the deluge nor the first destruction of Jerusalem. From 
the relation which exists between this Epistle and the apocryphal Book of 
Enoch, nothing certain regarding the period of composition can be inferred, 
particularly as the opinion concerning that relation is by no means settled; 
for whilst early critics assert the origin of this book, at least in its original 
condition, to pre-Christian times, and assume later interpolations, as Liicke 
(Einleitung in die Offb. Joh., etc.), Ewald, Weizsiicker (Untersuchungen iiber 
die evangel. Geschichte), Kostlin (Tiibing. theol. Jahrbb., 1856), especially 
Dillmann (Das Buch Henoch iibersetzt und erkldrt, 1853), and others; Hof- 
mann and Ferd. Philippi (in his book, Das Buch Henoch, sein Zeitalter, etc., 
1868) attempt to prove that it belongs to the Christian age, and was 
composed by a Jewish Christian; the reasons, however, adduced by them 
are not sufficient to cause us to regard the result of their examination as 
well founded. 

Mayerhoff (Einl. in die Petrin. Schriften, p. 195) supposes the place of 
composition to be Egypt, because Clemens Alexandrinus first quotes it, 


1 The reasons by which Schott endeavors year 80, are too uncertain to enable us to draw 
to prove that the Epistle was written at the this conclusion with certainty, 
end of the year 70, or the beginming ΟἹ the 


664 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


because the images employed in ver. 12 refer to a country which bordered 
on the sea, and was frequently exposed to draught by the east and south 
winds, and because the Book of Enoch was first used in Egypt. But 
Schwegler has correctly rejected these reasons as insufficient. 


SEC. 3.— AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 


Eusebius reckons this Epistle, as indeed all the Catholic Epistles except 
First John and First Peter, among the Antilegomena. The earliest Fathers 
who mention it are Tertullian (De Habit. Mul., c. 3) and Clemens Alexan- 
drinus (Strom., iii. p. 431, Paedag., iii. 8, p. 239, ed. Sylb.), who has also , 
commented on it. Origen often quotes it, and distinguishes it by special 
praise; Comm. on Matt., xiii. 55: ᾿Ιούδας ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὴν, ὀλιγόστιχον μὲν, πεπλη- 
ρωμένην δὲ τῶν τῆς οὐρανίου χάριτος ἐῤῥωμένων λόγων. Te, however, indicates that 
its genuineness is doubted by many. Jerome also mentions these doubts, 
saying that many rejected it on account of the quotation from the apocry- 
phal Book of Enoch; he himself, however, considered it as genuine. It is 
wanting in the Peshito (but not in the MS. in the Bodleian Library at Ox- 
ford; see Guericke, Einl., p. 42); but, on the other hand, it is mentioned in 
the Muratorian Canon. Since the fourth century it has been generally 
acknowledged as a genuine canonical writing. As the author does not call 
himself an apostle, criticism in more recent times was more inclined to con- 
sider it authentic than some other writings of the N. T. Even De Wetie 
observes, that there is no reason why Jude should not be the author of this 
Epistle; neither its use of the Book of Enoch, nor its probable acquaintance 
with the Epistle to the Romans, nor its harsh style though betraying a 
familiarity with the Greek language, is opposed to this. — Schwegler 
judges otherwise. He infers from vy. 17, 18, that the Epistle belongs to 
the post-apostolic times, although in point of doctrine its character is very 
simple and undeveloped. He thinks that the forger chose the name of 
Jude the brother of James, in order to indicate the community of principle 
with this latter person. In opposition to this it is to be observed, that, had 
the Epistle been written in the interests of Jewish Christianity against 
Pauline, we should surely have found indications of this; and a forger 
would hardly have attributed his writing to Jude, a person otherwise so 
entirely unknown. The above-mentioned verses by no means point to a 
post-apostolic age, since they rather suppose that the readers have heard the 
preaching of the apostles. The fact that we find no definite references to 


INTRODUCTION. 665 


this Epistle among the early Fathers, and that its genuineness at a later 
period was not wholly undoubted, is easily accounted for, partly from its 
special tendency (particularly from doctrine being so little referred to), 
partly from the apocryphal traits with which it is pervaded, and partly from 
the fact that the author did not belong to the apostles. 


666 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


Ἰούδα ἐπιστολή. 
Instead of this superscription (in A, C, K), there is found in B only Ἰούδα, 


Ver. 1. Instead of ’Iyo. Xp. (Rec., after A, B, L, δὲ, etc., several vss., etc., 
Lachm., Tisch. 8), Tisch. 7 had adopted Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, after K, P, etc., without 
sufficient justification. —7y:acuévorc]. Rec., after K, L, P, etc.; instead of this, 
ἠγαπημένοις, in A, B, δὲ, 5, al., Syr., utr., Erp., Copt., etc., Orig., Eph., is 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is true that there are exegetical difficulties 
connected with the latter reading, but it is too strongly defended by authorities 
to be on that account considered spurious. Reiche, Schott, Hofmann, have 
declared for it, Wiesinger against it; Briickner is undecided. — Ver. 3. τῆς κοινῆς 
σωτηρίας]. Rec., after K, L, P, al.; Tisch. 7 has retained this reading; Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8, on the contrary, read κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας, for which A, B, Ὁ, &, 5, 
al., Syr., Erp., Sahid., Theoph., Lucif., testify. The weight of authorities is 
in favor of this latter reading; it is possible that ἡμῶν was omitted in order to 
give to the idea a universal character. — Ver. 4. Instead of the usual form χάριν, 
Lachm. and Tisch., after A, B, read χάριτα, which occurs in classical writers 
only among the poets (see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Sprachl., § 44. Anm. 1) [E. T., 
13]. — τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν 'I. Xp., with Griesbach, Scholz, Tittmann, 
Lachm., Tisch., after the testimonies of A, B, Ὁ, κα, 10, Lect. 1, 3, Erp., Copt., 
Sahid., ete., Eph., Didym., Chrys. —The Rec. has after δεσπότην the word Θεόν 
(in K, L, P, ete., Syr., utr., Thph.), which, however, is a later addition, the 
more definitely to distinguish δεσπότην from κύριον ἡμῶν. In later MSS. many 
other variations are found, namely, Θεὸν καὶ δεσπότην τὸν Kip. Hu. "I. Xp., or δεσπό- 
την καὶ Θεὸν τὸν κύρ. Nu. "I. Xp., or Θεὸν δεσπότην καὶ Kip. ju. I. Xp.— Ver. 5. After 
εἰδότας, the Rec. has ὑμᾶς; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; it is wanting in 
A, B, C**, several min., etc., but is found in K, L, δὲ, etc. It may have been 
omitted on account of the preceding ὑμᾶς, --- τοῦτο (Rec., after K, L, etc.) 
appears to be an explanatory correction instead of the original πάντα, for which 
A, B, C**, 8, οἵα, Vulg., etc., testify; also Reiche considers πάντα as the 
original reading. δὰ has ἅπαξ after κύριος, so also several versions, yet after ὅτι 
κύριος. Two reasons co-operated for this displacement: (1) because ἅπαξ did not 
appear to suit εἰδότας, and (2) because the following τὸ δεύτερον appeared to 
require a word corresponding with σώσας, Tisch. on this observes: quae quidem 
lectio omnino praeferenda esset alteri, nisi incredibile esset ἅπαξ locum post 
εἰδότας αἰ quopiam correctore nactum esse. Reiche remarks: loco, quem vulgo 
occupat, testium auctoritate servari debet. — The Rec. ὁ κύριος is found in K, L, 
most min., some vss., and Fathers; Tisch. 7 has retained it; Tisch. 8 reads, 
after ΟἿ, %, κύριος without the article. A, B, several min., etc., have ᾿[ησοὺς 
instead of κύριος (on this Tisch. 8 remarks: articulum om. et A, B, et reliqui qui 
Ἰησοῦς praebent); Lachm. and Buttm. have adopted ὁ ’Ijoovc; C** and Lucif. 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 667 


read ὁ Θεός. The reading Ἰησοῦς (instead of κύριος) is indeed very strange, but 
might for this reason be changed into the other readings. — Ver. 6. Instead of 
te after ἀγγέλους (Tisch.), A, some min., etc., have δέ, Lachm. has δέ in the 
text-edition; but, on the other hand, in the larger edition he has rightly again 
adopted te. — Ver. 7. τούτοις τρόπον]. Rec., after K, L, etc.; a correction instead ἡ 
of πρόπον τούτοις (Lachm., Tisch.) in A, B, Ὁ, 8, many min., etc. — Ver. 9. In- 
stead of ὁ δὲ Mey. ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε, Lachm., against the testimony of A, C, Καὶ, 
L, δὲ, etc., has adopted, after B, ὅτε Μιχ. ὁ dpy. τότε. ---- Ver. 12. A, B, 13, al., 
m., edd., Syr., utr. (Copt.?), etc., read after ovro εἰσιν the relative οἱ, which 
Griesbach considers as probably genuine, and Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly 
adopted into the text;! the omission must be considered as an explanatory 
correction. — ἀγάπαις ; instead of which A, C, and some min., read ἀπάταις: a 
correction after 2 Pet. ii. 18. --- ὑμῶν]. Lachm. has in the small edition αὐτῶν, 
after A, etc., but in the larger edition the Rec. ὑμῶν, which is sufficiently 
attested by B, C, K, L, δὰ, etc.; the reading αὐτῶν, which Stier without reason 
considers as original, is explained from 1 Pet. ii. 13. — Instead of ὑπὸ ἀνέμων, & 
reads παντὶ ἀνέμῳ: an evident correction. — παραφερόμεναι is already by Griesb., 
Scholz, etc., after almost all authorities, rightly adopted into the text instead of 
the Rec. περιφερόμεναι. ---- Ver. 13. ἀγρια κύματα is in & instead of κύματα ἀγρια, 
which is attested by all authorities. — Buttmann has, after B, adopted πλανῆτες 
instead of πλανῆται, and ζόφος instead of ὁ G6go¢; as the other authorities, so also 
& testifies for the reading of the Rec. —ei¢ αἰῶνα; after A, B, Ὁ, 8, etc., instead 
of the Ree. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. --- Ver. 14. Instead of the form προεφήτευσε, attested by 
almost all authorities, Tisch. has, after ΒΡ, adopted ἐπροφήτευσε. ---- ἁγίαις μυριάσιν, 
after A, B, K, L, etc., instead of the Rec. μυριάσιν ἁγίαις in C; in & the reading 
is μυριάσιν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων. --- Ver. 15. ἐλέγξαι, after A, B, C, K, L, δὲ, ete., instead 
of the Ree. ἐξελέγξαι. ---- After ἀσεβεῖς, the Rec. has αὐτῶν, found in K, L, some 
min., vss., and Fathers; retained by Tischendorf,? and defended by Reiche; on 
the other hand, it is wanting in A, B, C (Lachm.); its spuriousness is scarcely 
to be doubted. — ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν is wanting in δὲ: ἀσεβείας in C; the omission is 
easily explained. — Tisch. 8 inserts after τῶν σκληρῶν the word λόγων, after C, κα, 
and many min.; it is wanting in most authorities (Tisch. 7); it appears to have 
been added from a regard to the preceding τῶν ἔργων. ---- Ver. 18. After ἔλεγον 
ὑμῖν, Tisch. 7, after A, C, K, L, ete., has ὅτι (Rec.); Tisch. 8 has omitted it after 
B, L*, 8; so also Lachm. in his larger edition, but hardly correctly. — Instead 
of the Rec. ἐν ἐσχάτῳ χρόνῳ (K, L, P, some min., and Oecumenius), which is an 
explanatory correction, Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly adopted ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τοῦ 
χρόνου: the article τοῦ is found in A, &, al., ete.; its omission is easily explained, 
because ἐσχάτου was taken for an adjective. — ἔσονταῆ. Whilst Lachm. in his 
small edition instead of it reads ἐλεύσονται, he has in the large edition rightly 
adopted the reading of the Rec. The reading ἐλεύσονται (in A, C**, etc.) is a 
correction after 2 Pet. iii. δὰ has primo manu ἔσονται: on the other hand, cor- 
rected ἐλεύσονται. --- Ver. 19. After ἀποδιορίζοντες, the Rec. has ἑαυτοῖς (C, Vulg., 
Aug.); an evident correction. — Ver. 20. Instead of the Rec. τῇ dywr. ὑμῶν πίσ- 
Tet ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτούς (K, L, P, al., pl., Syr., etc.), Lachm. and Tisch. read 


1 Reiche incorrectly observes that Buttmann as the original. 
has not adopted oi, and has adduced B as a 2 Tisch. 8 has it likewise in the text, al- 
witness for the reading of the Rec. On ac. though he says in the notes: ‘‘omisimus cum 
count of the difficulty which the article pre- A, B, C, &,” etc. 
sents, Reiche considers the reading of the Rec. 


668 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτ. τῇ dy. bu. π. (A, B, C, &, al., several vss., etc.).— Vv. 22, 23. 
The readings are here very various. The Rec. has καὶ ov¢ μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινόμενοι" 
οὗς δὲ ἐκ φόβῳ σώζετε, ἐν τοῦ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, This reading is found in K, L, P 
(only τοῦ before πυρός is omitted); A reads καὶ od¢ μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, od¢ 
δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὗς δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ; Lachm. and Tisch. have 
adopted this reading, only that instead of ἐλεεῖτε they read, with B, éAedre, — 
B deviates in this, that in ver. 22 it reads not ἐλέγχετε, but ἐλεᾶτε (so also &); in 
ver. 23 it omits the first od¢ δέ, and instead of ἐλεεῖτε has the form éAedre; C agrees 
on the whole with A, yet C** has in ver. 22 éAedre, as B, and in ver. 23 the 
words ov¢ δὲ ἐλεεῖτε are wanting in C. The reading of A is held as the original 
by Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, because the other readings can be most 
easily explained from it; Hofmann, on the contrary, prefers the reading in δὲ, 
which is found also in B, only with the inadvertent omission of the words οὖς dé 
after διακρινομένους: whilst De Wette thinks that the original reading is preserved 
in C. The reading in B probably lies at the foundation of the reading in K, L, 
P; the twofold ἐλεᾶτε was naturally objectionable, and therefore the words οὖς dé 
ἐλεᾶτε were left out, διακρινομένους changed into the nominative, and ἐν φύβῳ 
placed before owfere. For further observations, see the exposition. — Ver. 24. 
Instead of ὑμᾶς (ed. Elz.; A, C, L, δὲ, al., perm., several vss., Theoph., etc., 
Lachm., Tisch. 8), Tisch. 7 had, after K, P, al., etc., hardly correctly adopted 
αὐτούς: A has ἡμᾶς. --- Ver. 25. μόνῳ Θεῷ is correctly adopted by Griesbach, after 
A, B, C, &, 6, al., Syr., etc., instead of the Rec. μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ; σοφῷ is evidently 
borrowed from Rom. xvi. 27, and is without reason defended by Reiche. — da 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is likewise adopted by Griesbach (after A, B, etc.), 
whilst the words are wanting in the Rec. — The Rec. between δόξα and μεγαλω- 
σύνη has καί after K, L, P, etc., which is correctly omitted by recent critics; on 
the other hand, the words πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος, wanting in the Rec., are attested 
by almost all authorities. — The subscription of the Epistle is in B: Ἰούδα: in 
C: Ἰούδα ἐπιστολὴ καθολική; and in A: ᾿Ιοῦδα ἐπιστολῆ, 


Vy. 1, 2. The superscription is in form similar to that of the Epistles of 
Paul and Peter: Ἰούδας ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, κ.τ.}.1. δοῦλος, as its position and 
Rom. i. 1, Phil. i. 1, Jas. i. 1 (see also Tit. i. 1), show, denotes not the gen- 
eral service of believers to Christ (Schott), but the special service of those 
appointed to the gospel ministry. The more definite statement of office is 
here wanting, as the author is not the Apostle Jude (see Introd., sec. 1), 
so that his position in the Christian Church is to be regarded as similar to 
that which a Barnabas, an Apollos, and others oceupied, who, without being 
apostles in the narrower sense of the term, yet exercised a ministry similar 
to the apostolic. — With the first appellation the second ἀδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου is 
connected by dé (see Tit. i. 1), which, although not precisely a contrast 
(Schott), yet marks a distinction. This appellation serves not only to indi- 
cate who this Jude is (Arnaud), but likewise to justify his writing. Jude 
does not call himself “the brother of the Lord,” because his bodily relation 
to Christ stepped behind his spiritual, perhaps also because that surname 
already specially belonged to James. — τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις [ἡγιασμένοις] 
καὶ, κιτ.λ:]. According to the reading ἡγιασμένοις, ἐν expresses not the mere 
instrument of holiness, but holiness as consisting in fellowship with God. 
The participle is either substantive, co-ordinate to the following ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ 


VERSES 1, 2. 669 


τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς, or adjective, which is more probable on account of the 
similar participial form, τετηρημένοις. ---- According to the reading ἠγαπημένοις, 
ἐν Θεῷ πατρί may denote the sphere within which the readers are ἠγαπημένοι, 
namely, by the writer. Against the opinion of De Wette, “that in this 
objective designation the subjectivity of the author cannot be mixed,” 
Col. i. 2 might be appealed to, where Paul names the readers of his 
Epistle ἀδελφοί, that is, the brethren of himself and Timotheus (see also 
2 John 1 and 3 John 1); but in relation to what follows: καὶ ’Iyo. Xp. τετηρη- 
μένοις, this view is correct. —In the Vulgate, τοὶς ἐν Θεῷ πατρί is taken as an 
idea by itself: his gui sunt in Deo Patre, etc.; and then to this idea the two 
attributes are added: ἠγαπημένοις and ᾿Ιησ. Xp, τετηρ. κλητοῖς. Apart from its 
harshness, not only is it opposed to this construction, that by it the paral- 
lelism (incorrectly denied by Schott) of the two members of the clause — 
which is strongly indicated both by the form of the sentence and also by 
ἐν τῷ πατρί in reference to the following ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ --- is destroyed, but also 
ἠγαπημένοις Would then be without any proximate statement. The same is 
also the case when it is assumed, with Rampf and Schott, that the parti- 
ciples ἠγαπημένοις and ’1, Χ, τετηρημένοις are equally subordinate to ἐν Θεῷ πατρί; 
and explained as expressing “the living ground on which the called possess 
that which is expressed in the two participles” (Schott). The supplying of 
ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ΟΥ̓ παρὰ Θεῷ, necessary for this view, is at all events arbitrary; more- 
over, the juxtaposition of τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ "Ino. Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις is extremely 
harsh. — It is incorrect to take ἐν as equivalent to ὑπό (Hensler); ἐν is rather 
to be retained in its proper signification, in which it is entirely suitable to 
the idea ἀγαπᾶσθαι, as the love which proceeds from any person dwells in 
him, the κλητοί as they are loved by God so are they loved in God. Hofmann 
incorrectly explains it: “who have been accepted in love by God;” for 
ἀγαπᾷν never has this meaning, not even in the passages cited by Hofmann: 
1 Thess. i. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Col. ili. 12. — God is called πατρί in His rela- 
tion to Christ, not to men: see Phil. ii. 11; Gal. i. 1; and Meyer on the 
latter passage. — καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοὶ]. The dative Ἰησ. Χριστῷ 
is not dependent on an ἐν to be supplied from ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ (Luther: preserved 
in Jesus Christ). Hofmann indeed appeals for this supplement to Kihner, 
Gr., II. p. 477; but incorrectly, as this is rendered impossible by ἠγαπημένοις 
intervening. What Kihner says, could only be the case were it written ἐν 
Θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ ἠγαπημένοις. Also Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ is not the causative 
dative with the passive, instead of ὑπό with the genitive, but the dative com- 
modi: for Christ (Bengel, De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, and others). The 
participle τετηρημένοις is used neither instead of the present participle, as 
Grotius thinks, nor is it here to be understood of the act completed before 
God (De Wette, Wiesinger); but it simply denotes that which has taken 
place up to the time when the Epistle was written: thus, “to the called, 
who have been kept for Christ ;” namely, in order to belong to Him in time 
and in eternity (so also Schott).1 The idea τετηρ. is completely explained 


1 Arnauld incorrectly explains it: ‘‘ aux qui ont été appelés a J. Chr. par la prédication 
appelés gardés par J. Chr., c’est-a-dire: a ceux de l’Eyangile et que J. Chr. garde fidéles.”” 


670 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 

from the falling away from Christ which had taken place among so many; 
see ver. 4; comp. also John xvii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 5.— Although ἐν Θεῷ πατρί 
cannot be grammatically connected with τετηρημένοις, and although it pri- 
marily belongs to ἠγαπημένοις, yet it indicates by whom the preservation has 
taken place; Hornejus: quos Deus Pater... Christo . . . donavit et asservavit 
hue usque, ne ab impostoribus seducerentur et perirent. — κλητοῖς, a designation 
in the Pauline sense of those who have not only heard the gospel, but have 
embraced it by faith; see Meyer on 1 Cor. i. 24. Ver. 2. ἔλεος, «.7.4.]. The 
word ἔλεος is used in the formula of salutation only here and in the Pastoral 
Epistles. The addition καὶ ἀγάπη is peculiar to Jude. The relation of the 
three terms is thus to be understood: ἔλεος is the demeanor of God toward 
the κλητοῖ: εἰρήνη their condition founded upon it; and ἀγάπη their demeanor 
proceeding from it as the effect of God’s grace. Accordingly ἀγάπη is used 
here as in Eph. vi. 23 (see Meyer in loco); only here the love is to be limited 
neither specially to the brethren (Grotius), nor to God (Calov, Wiesinger). 
Still ἀγάπη may also be the love of God to the κλητοῖς ; comp. ver. 21 and 
2 Cor. xiii. 18 (14) (so Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, De Wette-Briickner, 
Schott, and others). No ground of decision can be derived from πληθυνθείη. 
With the reading ἠγαπημένοις the second explanation merits the preference, 
although the position of this expression after εἰρήνη is somewhat strange. 
On πληθυνθείη, see 1 Pet. i. 2; this form is apparently derived from Dan. 
111. 31. 

Vv. 3,4. Statement of the reason which determined Jude to write this 
Epistle: comp. on this 2 Pet. i. 12 f,, iii. 1 f£. —ayanyroi, found at the begin- 
ning of an Epistle only here and in 3 John 2. — πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος, x.7.A.]. 
Giving all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, I felt constrained 
to write to you, exhorting you to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. 
Pricaeus, Lachmann, Buttmann, put a comma after the first and after the 
second ὑμῖν, so that περὶ... σωτηρίας is connected with ἀνάγκην ἔσχον, and 
παρακαλῶν, etc., is separated from γράψαι. Most expositors, on the contrary, 
as Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, De Wette, Wiesinger, etc., connect περὶ σωτηρίας 
with the preceding γράφειν, and unite παρακαλῶν with γράψαι. Not only the 
position of the words, but also the train of thought, decides for this latter 
arrangement; for since, according to ver. 4, the ἀνάγκη, inducing the author 
to write this Epistle, consisted in the appearance of wicked men, so it is 
evidently more suitable to connect γράψαι with παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, having 
special reference to it, than with the general idea περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, par- 
ticularly as the contents of the Epistle are any thing but a treatise concern- 
ing the common salvation.1_ The preceding participial clause states in what 
condition Jude was when the ἀνάγκην ἔχειν came upon him; the σπουδῇ to 
write already existed when the entrance of certain ungodly men constrained 
him not to write generally περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, but to compose such a 


1 The translation of the Vulg.: “omnem 
solicitudinem faciens scribendi vobis de com- 
muni vestra salute necesse habui scribere vobis 
depraecans supercertari,’’ etc., may also be 
punctuated in both ways. Lachmann has, in 


his larger δα πιο π᾿ of the N. T., punctuated it 
as he has done in the Greek text; in other 
editions of the Vulgate, on the contrary, the 
other punctuation is found. 


VERSE 3. 671 
hortative epistle as the present. Some expositors incorrectly think that the 
ἀνάγκη had its reason in the σπουδή (Erasmus: tantum mihi studium fuit, ut non 
potuerim non scribere vobis); others, that to the σπουδῇ the ἀνάγκη supervened 
as a new point; so Hornejus: cum summum mihi esset studium scribendi ad vos 
aliquid de communi nostrum omnium salute, etiam necessitas insuper scribendi 
imposita fuit, quae autem illa sit, statim addit (so also Calvin and others). 
De Wette (with whom Briickner agrees) considers that Jude by the first 
clause expresses that “he had been engaged on the composition of a longer 
and more comprehensive Epistle (the loss of which we have to lament), 
when he was for the time called away from that work in order to write the 
present Epistle;” but the expression πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος does not neces- 
sarily involve actual writing. — σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι is only found here in the 
N. T. (2 Pet. i. 5: σπουδὴν πᾶσαν rapecoépew ; prologue to Ecclus.: προσφέρειν 
τινὰ σπουδῆν) ; the meaning is, to be eagerly solicitous about something; it may 
refer both to mental activity and to external action; here the former is the 
ease. Luther’s translation, “after I purposed,” is too flat; Meyer’s is 
better: “since it lies pressingly upon my heart.” —dcavy serves, as fre- 
quently, for the strengthening of the idea.— The participle ποιούμενος, in 
connection with the aorists ἔσχον γράψαι, is to be taken as the imperfect 
participle. Stier incorrectly translates: “when engaged in it I would take 
diligence.” It expresses the activity which took place, when the action 
expressed by the finite verb occurred, and therefore must not be resolved, 
with Haenlein, into the perfect or pluperfect.— περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας 
states on what Jude intended to write. On κοινῆς, comp. Tit. i. 4; 2 Pet. i. 1. 
There is no reason to refer the idea, with Semler, to the Jews and Gentiles, 
as the object common to both. — σωτηρία, not the doctrine of salvation (Jach- 
mann), but the salvation itself, acquired by Christ for the world, and applied 
to believers. The explanation of Beza: de iis QUAE AD nostram omnium 
salutem PERTINENT, deviates from strict precision, as σωτηρία itself is indi- 
cated by Jude as the object of writing. Schott incorrectly explains σωτηρία, 
state of salvation, possession of salvation. — ἀνάγκην ἔσχον]. Comp. Luke xiv. 10, 
xxiii. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 37. The explanation of Grotius is inaccurate: nihil 
potius habui, quod scriberem, quam ut, etc. The translation of Luther is too 
flat: “I considered it necessary ;” for in ἀνάγκην ἔχειν is contained the idea 
of an objective necessity founded on duty, circumstances, etc. (De Wette, 
Wiesinger, Schott). The meaning here is: The entrance of false teachers 
constrained me, made me to recognize it as necessary. On the one hand, 
Semler inserts a strange reference, paraphrasing it, accidit interea INOPI- 
NATO, ut statuendum mihi... esset; and, on the other hand, Schott, who, 
in order to emphasize the contrast between the two members of the sentence, 


1 De Wette incorrectly appeals for this 
supposition to Sherlock (in Wolf), who thus 
explains it: “dilecti, animus mihi erat, scri- 
bere ad vos de communibus doctrinis et spe 
evangelii ad fidem vestram et Jesu Christi cog- 
nitionem amplificandam; jam vero coactum 
me video, ut hoc institutum deseram et ad 


cavendum praesens periculum, vos exhorter, 
ut serio teneatis eam quae vobis tradita est, 
doctrinam, contra falsos doctores, quos clan- 
culum audio irrepsisse.’”” What De Wette 
regards as accomplished, or in the act of being 
accomplished, Sherlock considers only as 
intended. 


672 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


finds in ἀνάγκ. ἔσχον the thought expressed that Jude wrote this Epistle 
unwillingly, contrary to his inclinalion. —ypapa ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν]. παρακαλῶν is 
closely united to γράψαι, as indicating the kind of writing to which the 
author felt constrained by circumstances; therefore no comma is to be put 
after ὑμῖν. --- ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ... πίστει]. ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, a Gm. Aey., AS συναθλέω, 
Phil. i. 27, connected with the dative of the object which is contended for; 
Stier: “to fight for the faith;” comp. Ecclus. iv. 28: ἀγωνίζειν mepi.— πίστις 
is not = doctrina, system of doctrine; nor yet does it here denote the subjec- 
tive quality of the believing disposition; but that which is believed by 
Christians (τοῖς ἁγίοις), the objective contents of faith. Schott is incorrect 
in explaining it, “the conduct arising from faith;” for the notion of con- 
duct does not suit παραδοθείσῃ. The explanation, the way of salvation (Hof- 
mann), is also wanting in correctness; it is not proved by Gal. iii. 23. — As 
the subject to παραδοθείσῃ, by whom the communication or transmission was 
effected, God (Bengel) is not here to be thought of, but the aposiles, as ver. 17 
shows; 2 Pet. ii. 21; Luke i. 2 (comp. also 1 Cor. xi. 2, 23, xv. 8); yet the 
author does not name them, because “he is not concerned here with the per- 
sonal instruments, but with the mode and manner of transmission contained 
in ἅπαξ" (Schott). τοῖς ἁγίοις are not the apostles (Nic. de Lyra), but Chris- 
tians. — ἅπαξ brings prominently forward the fact that as it once took place, 
so there is now an end to the παράδοσις; Bengel: nulla alia dabitur fides. 
Jachmann incorrectly explains it by ἤδη, olim, jam, appealing to ver. 5 and 
Heb. vi. 4. According to Hofmann’s view, ἅπαξ is used “ with reference to 
the preceding intention of Jude to present to the readers a writing having 
the common salvation as its object;” but this reference is not indicated. 
Ver. 4. Compare 2 Pet. ii. 1-3.— παρεισέδυσαν yap, the reason of ἀνάγκην 
ἔσχον. παρεισέδυσαν marks the entrance of false teachers into the church as a 
secret and unauthorized creeping-in of such as do not properly belong to it, 
but are internally foreign to it (comp. Gal. ii. 4: παρείσακτοι, explained by 
the scholiasts by ἀλλότριοι) ; it is synonymous with mapewépyectar; comp. 
2 Tim. 111. 6. — τινες ἄνθρωποι]. In the same indefiniteness the false teachers 
are also mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 6. Arnaud observes: “le mot τινες a quelque 
chose de méprisant, comme dans Gal. ti. 12;” so also Wiesinger and Schott; 
this is possible; but the appeal to Gal. ii. 12 is unjustified. That the ex- 
pression ἄνθρωποι is used in order to bring forward the fact that they “with 
their entrance into the church remained in their natural state” (Schott), is 
highly improbable. Hofmann unnecessarily separates τίνες from ἄνθρωποι, 
taking ἄνθρωποι, oi, «.7.A., aS in apposition to τίνες. ---- οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς 
τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα]. By the participle with the article, a peculiar circumstance 
worthy of remark, concerning these men, is brought forward (Winer, p. 127 
[E. T., 189 1.1); but not as Schott, after Rampf, arbitrarily maintains, “a 
mark perfectly clear to the readers is given for the recognition of those who 
are meant; ” the article being equivalent to isti, those notorious men. — mpoye- 


1 When Hofmann maintains that ver. 4 not also another besides an apostle have cher- 
could only have been written by an apostle, ished the design to address a writing to Chris- 
he evidently proceeds too far; for, why could _ tians respecting the common faith? 


VERSE 4. 673 


ypauuévor]. The preposition πρὸ in this verb indicates either antea, earlier, 
before, —thus always in the N. T.; see Gal. iii. 1 (comp. Meyer in loc.) ; 
Rom. xv. 4; Eph. iii. 8,—or palam. If it has this last meaning, then zpo- 
γράφειν Signifies “to announce something publicly by writing;” thus in an 
entirely special sense proscribere ; accordingly Wolf explains it: qui dudum 
sunt accusati et in hoc judicium (εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα) vocati. Yet this is inaccu- 
rate, as the peculiar idea of proscribere is not retained; for, if retained, it 
would not suit εἰς τ. τ. κρῖμα. Yet more arbitrarily Wahl explains προγράφειν 
by designare. Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others have correctly taken πρὸ 
here as a preposition of time. According to Isa. iv. ὃ, LXX.: οἱ γραφέντες 
εἰς ζωῆν, the sense might be: those who are written before (as in God's book 
of fate, and consequently destined) εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα (Calvin: haec metaphora 
inde sumpta est, quod aeternum Dei consilium, quo ordinati sunt fideles ad salu- 
tem, Liber vocatur); but the term πάλαι is unsuitable, as it is never in the 
N. T. used of God’s eternal counsels. προγράφειν is here rather to be under- 
stood entirely as in the adduced passages of the N. T.; and with De Wette 
a pregnancy of expression is to be assumed; thus, those who are already before 
by writing destined to this judgment. Hofmann explains πρυγεγραμμένοι accord- 
ing to John i. 46 compared with v. 46 (γράφειν τινα = yp. περὶ τινος) : “ those 
of whom it is written before;” and then εἰς τοῦτο τ. xp. = “in reference to 
this judgment;” but with regard to the former it is to be remarked, that 
the form of expression here is different from John i. 46; and with regard 
to the latter, that by it a weakening of the preposition in its direct connec- 
tion with προγεγραμμένοι takes place.!_ Oecumenius refers this to the proph- 
ecies concerning future false teachers contained in the Epistles of Paul and 
Peter. Grotius, Schott, Hofmann, and others point particularly to 2 Pet. ii. 
But πάλαι combined with zpoyeyp. evidently points back to an earlier period,? 
so that only older prophecies can be meant, namely, the prophecies and types 
of the O. T., and perhaps particularly the prophecies contained in the Book 
of Enoch: see ver. 14 (so also Wiesinger). Against Calvin and Beza, who 
find the idea of the decretum aeternum here expressed, Bengel remarks: non 
innuitur praedestinatio, sed scripturae praedictio. — εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα]. Although 
κρίμα in itself is not equivalent to κατάκριμα, yet here a condemnatory judg- 
ment is meant; τοῦτο, namely, that which Jude has in view, and which is 
indicated in the following verse; Stier: “for this judgment, which I now 
announce to them;” Arnaud: il y a τοῦτο, parceque cette punition est l'objet 
qui l’occupe. It is incorrect, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, to refer τοῦτο τὸ 
κρίμα to παρεισέδυσαν, as something including judgment in itself; or, with 
Schott, to the “damnable error of those men,” specified in the words τὴν τοὺ 
Θεοῦ, x.7.4.; for neither the entering-in nor the error can in themselves be 


1 Luther’s translation: ‘‘there are certain present” (Pape), may certainly be used when 


men crept in, of whom it is written before, to 
this punishment,” by which προγεγρ. is sepa- 
rated from ets τ᾿ 7. kp., is contradicted by the 
natural verbal connection, 

2 Schott and Hofmann contest the fact that 
πάλαι points to an earlier period. πάλαι, which 
‘* generally indicates the past in contrast to the 


that past is not distant (comp. Mark xv. 44) ; 
but, on the one hand, this use of the term is 
rare; and, on the other hand, it is not here 
applicable, as the reference to the past gener- 
ally is already contained in the πρὸ of the 
compound verb; πάλαι here can only be put to 
mark this past as lying in the distance, 


014 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


called a κρίμα. ---- ἀσεβεῖς to be taken by itself; not to be united with οἱ προγε- 
γραμμένοι (against Tischendorf, who has placed no comma before ἀσεβεῖς). 
The ungodliness of these men is further indicated, according to its nature, by 
the participial clauses which follow (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 6).— τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν 
χάριν, k.7.2., who pervert the grace of our God inte lasciviousness. χάρις, not = 
doctrina gratiae (Vorstius), nor evangelium (Grotius), nor fides catholica nobis 
gratis data (Nicolas de Lyra); but grace itself as the proffered gift of God in 
the forgiveness of sin and redemption from the law; so also Wiesinger, 
Fronmiiller, Hofmann. It is incorrect to explain the idea by “the life of 
grace” (De Wette-Briickner), or by “the ordinances of grace” (Schott). 
ἡμῶν, belonging to τοῦ Θεοῦ, is to be understood as an expression of the feel- 
ing of sonship; Bengel: nostri, non impiorum. —In μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, 
ἀσέλγ. is either’ the purpose of the change of the grace of God, or that into 
which grace is changed. In the former case μετατίθημι here would in itself 
have a bad subsidiary meaning (De Wette. “who pervert the grace of our 
God for the purpose of licentiousness”’); but it never elsewhere so occurs 
in the N. T. Accordingly, the second explanation is better (Briickner), 
according to which the meaning is: they have converted the yapic, which 
God gave to them, into something different, namely doé2)«a; inasmuch as 
liberty was converted by them into lasciviousness; comp. Gal. ν. 13; 1 Pet. 
ii. 16; 2 Pet. 11. 19. —xai τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμὼν ᾽1. Xp. ἀρνουμενοι]. 
In 2 Pet. ii. 1 the epithet δεσπότης is used of Christ; this favors the combi- 
nation of τὸν μόνον δεσπότην aS an attribute with ‘Ilya Xp. (so De Wette, 
Schmidt, Rampf, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann). But, on the 
one hand, in every other place this word denotes God, and, on the other 
hand, δεσπότης would hardly be distinguished from the word κύριος, if both 
were to be referred to Christ,1 add to this that μόνος elsewhere expresses 
the unity of the divine nature; comp. Jude 25; John v. 44, xvii. 3; Rom. 
xvi. 27; 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 15, 16; Rev. xv. 4; against which view Schott 
incorrectly urges 1 Cor. viii. 6 and Eph. iv. 5. For these reasons, it is 
more probable that τὸν μόνον δεσπότην is not an appellation of Christ, but a 
designation of God (Briickner); comp. 1 John ii. 22: 
καὶ τὸν υἱόν (also Enoch xlviii. 10 is to be compared: “they have denied the 
Lord of the spirits and His Anointed”). No argument against this expla- 
nation can be drawn from the want of the article before κύριον; see author’s 
commentary on Tit. ii. 3 (Winer, p. 121 ff. [E. T., 130]),? which is in an 


ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα 


unjustifiable manner denied by Hofmann. 


1 Hofmann gives the distinction of these 
two ideas as follows: ‘‘ Christ is our δεσπότης, 
as we are His property bound to His service, 
He is our κύριος, as His will is the standard of 
ours.” But if this be correct, it is not in favor 
of Hofmann, but against him, because Jude 
would then in an incomprehensible manner 
make the weaker idea to follow upon the 
stronger. 

2 When Wiesinger and Schott appeal for 
their explanation to the fact that the relation 
to God is already expressed in the preceding 


The denial may be considered 


clause, and that therefore it would be unsuita- 
ble to express it here again, it is to be observed 
that in that clause the relation to Christ is also 
indicated, since the grace of God is communi- 
cated through Christ; also, there is no reason 
why Jude should not have indicated μετατιθε- 
vat as a denial both of Jesus Christ and of 
God. Whilst Schott grants that the expres- 
sion ‘‘the only master” may only refer to 
God, he so interprets the article τόν before 
μόνον δεσπ., that he explains it as equivalent 
to ‘* he who is.” 


VERSE ὅ.᾽ 675 


as either practical (comp. Tit. i. 16) or theoretical. Since throughout this 
Epistle the carnal and godless disposition of these men is brought forward, 
it is most probable that Jude at least had the first kind of denial specially 
in view. At all events, such explanations as those of Grotius: “ abnegabant 
Jesum, quia eum dicebant hominem natum ex homine,” are to be rejected, as 
Jude never reproaches his adversaries with such a definite erroneous doctrine. 

Ver. 5. From this verse to ver. 7 we have three examples, as repre- 
sentations of the judgment which threatens those mentioned in ver. 4. 
Compare with this 2 Pet. 11. 4-6. -- ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βοὐλομαῆ. δέ is used 
metabatically (as a mere particle of transition); not in order to put 
ὑπομνῆσαι in contrast to παρακαλῶν (ver. 3), which is only to be justified by 
the explanation of Schott, that “Jude intends not properly to exhort the 
readers, but by παρακαλεῖν he means only that he will remind them.” ὑμᾶς 
is not the subject, but the object to ὑπομνῆσαι ; comp. 2 Pet. i. 12 (Rom. xv. 
15). — εἰδότας [ὑμάς] ἅπαξ πάντα]. εἰδότας is either in an adversative sense = 
καΐπερ εἰδότας (De Wette); or, which is to be preferred on account of ἁπαξ 
the statement of the reason of ὑπομνῆσαι. ---- ἁπαξ is not to be united per 
hyperbaton with σώσας ; also not = first, so that δεύτερον corresponding to it 
would be = secondly, and both referred to εἰδότας (Jachmann); but ἅπαξ 
belongs to εἰδότας, and τὸ δεύτερον to ἀπώλεσεν. Hornejus incorrectly explains 
ἅπαξ by jampridem et ab initio (Arnaud: vous qui l’avez su une fois); it has 
here rather the same meaning as in ver. 3, rendering prominent that a new 
teaching is not necessary (De Wette, Stier, Wiesinger, Fronmiiller, Schott, 
Hofmann).— πάντα; according to Nicolas de Lyra = omnia αὐ salutem 
necessaria ; better, every thing which is an object of evangelical teaching, 
here naturaily with particular reference to what directly follows, to which 
alone the τοῦτο of the Rec. points.?— ὅτι 6 κύριος (Ἰησοῦς) λαὸν... σώσας]. ὅτι 
belongs not to εἰδότας πάντα, but to ὑπομνῆσαι. ---- With the reading (6) Ἰησοῦς 
(Stier calls it, “without example, and incomprehensibly strange”) Jude 
here would speak from the same point of view as Paul does in 1 Cor. x. 4 
(comp. also 1 Pet. i. 11), according to which all the acts of divine revelation 
are done by the instrumentality of Christ, as the eternal Son and revealer 
of God. The name ᾿Ιησοὺς, by which Christ is designated in His earthly 
and human personality, is, however, surprising; but Jude might have so 
used it from the consciousness that the. eternal Son of God and He who 
was born of Mary is the same Person (comp. 1 Cor. viii..9; Phil. ii. 5). 
With the reading xipuc—certainly the more natural—which De Wette- 
Brickner and Hofmann prefer, whilst Wiesinger and Schott consider ᾿Ἰησοῦς 
as the original —a designation of God is to be understood. —Aasv]. That 
by this the people of Israel is meant, is evident; the article is wanting, 
because Jude would indicate that Israel was saved as an entire people, with 


1 Nicolas de Lyra: “ commonere autem vos but he erroneously thinks that ἅπαξ with εἰδό- 
volo et non docere de novo; et subditur ratio;” τας indicates “this knowledge is meant as a 
Bengel: ‘‘ causa, cur admoneat duntaxat: quia knowledge effected by a definite individual 
jam sciant, semelque cognitum habeant;” so act,”’ and that ἅπαξ is to be understood of the 
also Wiesinger and Schott. instruction given in Second Peter. 

2 Schott, indeed, explains πάντα correctly; 


676 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 

reference to the following τοὺς μὴ moteboavrac.1 — τὸ δεύτερον is to be retained 
in its proper meaning, and to be explained neither, with Nicolas de Lyra, 
and others, as = post (Arnaud: de nouveau, ensuite, apres), nor, with Grotius 
and Wolf, as = ex contrario. It indicates that what was said in the preceding 
participial sentence, namely, the divine deliverance of the people from Egypt, 
is considered as a first deed, to which a second followed. The definite 
statement of what this second is, is usually derived from the preceding 
σώσας, and by it is accordingly understood a second deliverance; but there 
are different views as to what deliverance is meant. In this commentary 
the deliverance of the people from the wilderness was designated as this 
second deliverance, which certainly occurred to the people, yet only so that 
those who believed not did not attain to it, but were destroyed by God in 
the wilderness (so, in essentials, Stier, Briickner, Wiesinger). On the other 
hand, Schmidt (Bibl. Theologie, ii.), Luthardt, Schott, Hofmann, understand 
by it the deliverance effected by Christ; whilst they regard as the punish- 
ment falling on unbelievers, the destruction of Jerusalem, or the overthrow 
of the Jewish state. But both explanations are arbitrary: for, first, it is 
unauthorized to refer τὸ δεύτερον only to σώσας and not to ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας; 
and, secondly, in the principal sentence a deliverance is not at all indicated.? 
Whilst, then, Jude thinks on the deliverance from Egypt as a first deed, he 
does not mention a deliverance, but the destruction of those who believed 
not, as the second deed following the first. But this second is not indicated 
as.a single deed, and therefore by it is to be understood generally what 
befell the unbelieving in the wilderness after the deliverance from Egypt ; 
what this was, is expressed in the words τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. It is 
arbitrary to refer this, with Ritschl, only to the history recorded in Num. 
xxv. 1-9; and still more arbitrary to refer it, with Fronmiiller, to the Baby- 
lonish captivity (2 Chron. xxxvi. 16 ff.). Compare, moreover, with this 
verse, Heb. iii. 16-19. — τοὺς μὴ moteboavrac]. On uy, with participles, see 
Winer, p. 449 f. (E. T., 482); comp. ver. 6: τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας. It is to be 
observed, that in the corresponding passage, 2 Pet. ii., instead of this ex- 
ample, the deluge is named. 

Ver. 6. A second example taken from the angelic world. As God 
spared not the people rescued from bondage, so neither did He spare the 
- angels who left their habitation. This also was an admonitory represen- 
tation for Christians, who, in the face of the high dignity which they 
possessed by redemption, yielded themselves to a life of vice. — ἀγγέλους te 
τοὺς μὴ τηρῆσαντας, K.T.A., is, according to the construction, as the re indicates, 
closely connected with the preceding. —dyyédove without the article con- 


1 Calvin observes: ‘nomen populi honori- 
fice capitur pro gente sancta et electa, ac si 
diceret, nihil illis profuisse, quod singulari 
privilegio in foedus assumpti essent;” but 
were this correct, αὑτοῦ would at least have 
been added. 

2 Against Winer’s explanation, p. 576 
(E. T., 620): “the verb connected with τὸ 


δεύτερον should properly have been οὐκ ἔσωσε 
(ἀλλά, x.7.A.); the Lord, after having saved, 
the second time (when they needed His help- 
ing grace) refused them this saying grace, and 
left them to destruction.’’ But there is noth- 
ing indicated in the context of a state of being 
in want of grace. 


VERSE 6. 677 
sidered generally; the participle connected with the article indicates the 
definite class of angels who are here meant. For the understanding of 
this verse the following points are to be observed: (1) By the twofold 
participial clause τοὺς μὴ... ἀρχῆν and ἀπολιπόντας. . . οἰκητήριον, something 
sinful is attributed to the angels (2 Pet. ii. 4: ἁμαρτησάντων), on account of 
which the punishment expressed by εἰς κρίσιν... τετήρηκε was inflicted upon 
them; (2) The two clauses μὴ. .. ἀλλὰ. . . so correspond, that the second 
positive clause explains the first negative clause; and (3) what Jude says of 
the angels corresponds with the doctrine of the angels contained in the 
Book of Enoch. — τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτὼν ἀρχῆν, x.7.A.J. ἀρχῆ must here 
denote something which the angels by forsaking τὸ ἔδιον οἰκητήριον did not 
preserve, but gave up or slighted. But by ἀπολ. τὸ ἴδ. οἰκητ., according to 
the Book of Enoch xii. 4,1 is meant their forsaking of heaven, and their 
descent to earth in order to go after the daughters of men (so also 
Hofmann); but not, as Hornejus and others think, the loss of the heavenly 
dwelling, which they drew upon themselves by conspiring against God; 
which would militate against the first observation. — By dpy7 expositors 
understand either the original condition (origo: Calvin, Grotius, Hornejus,? 
and others), or the dominion which originally belonged to them (Bengel, De 
Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Briickner thinks that the meaning 
dominion passes over into that of origin). According to the first explanation, 
the term is too indefinite, both in itself and in reference to the second 
parallel clause. It is in favor of the second explanation, that in the N. T. 
angels are often designated by the name ἀρχῆ, apyai; as also the prevailing 
idea among the Jews was, that to the angels a lordship belongs over the 
earthly creation. By this explanation, also, the two clauses correspond ; 
instead of administering their office as rulers, they forsook their heavenly 
habitation, and thus became culpable. The explanation, according to 
which ἀρχὴ ἑαυτὼν denotes not the dominion of the angels, but the dominion 
of God, to which they were subjected, is both against linguistic usage and 
against the context. —eic¢ xprow .. . τετήρηκεν]. Statement of the punish- 
ment. This also corresponds with the expression in the Book of Enoch, 
where in chap. x. 12 it is said; “Bind them fast under the mountains of 
the earth . . . even to the day of judgment . . . until the last judgment 
will be held for all eternity.? — τετήρηκεν is in sharp contrast to μὴ τηρῆσαν- 


1“ Announce to the watchers of heaven, 
who forsook the high heaven and their holy 
eternal abodes, and have corrupted themselves 
with women;” xv. 3: ‘* Wherefore have ye 
forsaken the high and holy and eternal heaven, 
and have slept with women?” ... Ixiv.: 
‘These are the angels who have gone down 
from heaven to earth;” and other passages. 
Gen. vi. 2 lies at the foundation of this tradi- 
tion, the explanation of which is to this day 
contested. Whilst Hofmann explains the ex. 
pression oToNA 3 as a designation of 
the angels, Ferd. Philippi decidedly rejects 
this explanation. 


2 Hornejus, after John viii. 44, designates 
as the original condition here meant, veritus, 
1.e., innocentia et sanctitas. Stier thinks 
“‘that the original condition was at the same 
time the ground of their nature and condition 
in God, or, as it is now perhaps called, the 
principle of their true life. They preserved 
not themselves in God, whilst they surren- 
dered and lost the proper pure ground of their 
glorious being.” 

8 Comp. also x. 4: “ Bind Azazél, and put 
him in darkness,” xiv. 5, xxi. 10, ete. In the 
Midrasch Ruth in the Book of Zohar it is said: 
* Postquam filii Dei filios genuerunt, sumsit 


678 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


tac: the perfect expresses an action begun in the past and continued in the 
present. The mode of retention is more precisely stated by δεσμοὶς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ 
ζύφον]. By ἀϊδίοις the chains by which they are bound are designated as 
eternal, and incapable of being rent. ὑπὸ ζόφον]. ζόφος only here and ver. 
13, and in the parallel passages, 2 Pet. 1i. 4 and 17; comp. also Wisd. xvii. 
2:1 usually σκότος, the darkness of hell; ὑπό is explained by conceiving the 
angels in the lowest depths of hell, covered with darkness.?_ In τετήρηκεν is 
not contained the final doom which will only take place at the general 
judgment; therefore: εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας. ey. ἡμέρα, without any 
further designation, used of the last judgment only here; the same adjec- 
tive, as an attribute of that day, in Acts ii. 20; Rev. vi. 17, xvi. 14. 

Ver. 7. Third example: the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha and 
the cities about them, which, however, is not co-ordinate with the preceding 
two, but is closely connected with the last mentioned, “whilst here both 
times a permanent condition is meant, which a similar sin has had as its 
consequence, whereas ἀπώλεσεν (ver. 5) states a judgment of God already 
past” (Hofmann’s Schrifib., I. p. 438). --- ὡς is not to be connected with the 
following ὁμοίως, ver. 8; nor is ὅτι, ver. 5, to be connected with ὑπομνῆσαι... 
βούλομαι (De Wette) = how instead of “that;” it refers rather to what 
directly precedes = like as (Semler, Arnaud, Hofmann, Briickner, Wiesinger, 
Schott, and others; Luther: as also), whilst ver. 7 confirms ἀγγέλους... 
τετήρηκεν by the comparison with what befell Sodom and Gomorrha: God 
retains the angels kept unto the day of judgment, even as Sodom and 
Gomorrha πρόκεινται δεῖγμα, «.7.A. With the connection with ὑπομν, βουλ. 
(ver. 5) a preceding καὶ would hardly be necessary, also the words τὸν ὄμοιον 
τούτοις indicate the close connection with ver. €.— Σόδομα καὶ Γόμοῤῥα fre- 
quently adduced in the O. and N. T. as examples of the divine judgment; 
see, for example, Rom. ix. 29. --- καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, according to Deut. 
xxix. 23; Hos. xi. 8, Admah and Zeboim. —rdv ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορ- 


eos Deus et ad montem tenebrarum perduxit, 
hgayitque in catenis ferreis, quae usque ad 
medium abyssi maguae pertingunt.”” 

1 Comp. also Hesiod, Theog., v. 729, where 
it is said: — 

'Ev@a θεοὶ Τιτῆνες ὑπὸ ζόφῳ ἠρόεντα 
Κεκρύφαται, βουλῆσι Διὸς νεφεληγερέταο, 
Xwpw ἐν εὑρώεντι. 

2 There is an apparent difference between 
what is here said, and the representations of 
the N. T. elsewhere, according to which Satan 
and his ἄγγελοι have even now their residence 
in the air (Eph. ii. 2, or in the upper regions, 
ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανιοις, Eph. vi. 12), and although 
already judged by Christ (John xvi. 11), yet 
8ἃΒ κοσμοκράτορες exercise power over unbe- 
lievers, and also lay snares for believers, in 
order to bring them again into subjection. 
Expositors, in general, have attempted to rec- 
oncile this by referring this continued aetivity 
of the Devil to the special permission of 
God; Calvin, otherwise: ‘‘ porro nobis fingen- 


dus non est locus, quo inclusi sint diaboli; 
simpliciter enim docere voluit Ap., quam 
misera sil eorum conditio... nam quocunque 
pergant, secum trahunt sua yincula et suis 
tenebris obvoluti manent.” Dietlein remarks 
on 2 Pet. ii. 4: ‘* Not only Tartarus, but also 
the chains of darkness, are to be understood 
in a local and corporeal sense, but not of such 
a locality, or of such an imprisonment in that 
locality, as would require an exclusion from 
our locality, or an incapability of movement 
through our locality.” But all these artificial 
explanations are to be rejected, inasmuch as 
Jude does not speak of Satan and his angels, 
but of a definite class of angels, to whom, in 
agreement with the Book of Enoch, he refers 
Gen. vi.2. This is correctly observed by Hof- 
mann, Wiesinger, and Schott, with whom 
Briickner appears to agree; on the other hand, 
F. Philippi (p. 140) observes: ‘‘ Jude speaks 
here of the original fall of the angels from 
pride, not of their union with earthly women.” 


VERSE 7. 679 


veboacat]. τούτοις may grammatically be referred to Σόδ. κ, Téu. (or, by synesis, 
to the inhabitants of these cities; so Krebs, Calvin, Hornejus, Vorstius, 
and others); but by this construction the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha 
would only be indirectly indicated. Since, also, τούτοις cannot refer to the 
false teachers, ver. 4, because, as De Wette correctly remarks, the thought 
of ver. 8 would be anticipated, it must refer to the angels who, according 
to the Book of Enoch, sinned in a similar way as the inhabitants of those 
cities (thus Herder, Schneckenburger, Jachmann, De Wette, Arnaud, Hof- 
mann, and others). — ἐκπορνεύσασαι, the sin of the inhabitants, is designated 
as the action of the cities themselves. The verb (often in the LXX., the 
translation of 31; also in the Apocrypha) is in the N. T. a ἅπ. Aey. The 
preposition é« serves for strengthening the idea, indicating that “one by 
mopvever becomes unfaithful to true moral conduct” (Hofmann), but not 
- that “he goes beyond the boundaries of nature” (Stier, Wiesinger, and 
similarly Schott). — καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας]. The expression ἀπέρχ. 
ὀπισω τινὸς is found in Mark i. 20 in its literal sense; here it has a figurative 
meaning; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 10, πορεύεσθαι ὀπ.; Jer. ii. 5; Ecclus. xlvi. 10.— 
Arnaud: ces mots sont ici un euphemisme, pour exprimer lacte de la prostitution. 
In ἀπό is contained the turning aside from the right way. Oecumenius 
thus explains the import of σὰρξ ἑτέρα: σάρκα δὲ ἑτέραν, τὴν ἄῤῥηνα φύσιν λέγει, ὡς 
μὴ πρὸς συνουσιαν γενέσεως συντελοῦσαν ; SO also Bruckner and Wiesinger. Stier, 
Schott, Hofmann, proceed further, referring to Lev. xviii. 29, 24, and 
accordingly explaining it: “not only have they practised shame, man with 
man, but even man with beast” (Stier). Only this explanation corresponds 
to σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, and only by it do the connection of ver. 7 with ver. 6, ex- 
pressed by ὡς, and the explanation: τὸν ὅμοιον τρύπον τούτοις, receive their true 
meaning. The σάρξ of men was ἑτέρα σὰρξ to the angels, as that of beasts is 
to men. In the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 6, the sin of the cities is not 
stated. — πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δικην bréxovoat]. πρόκεινται : they lie 
before the eyes as a δεῖγμα; not, “inasmuch as the example of punishment in 
its historicai attestation is ever present” (Schott); but, inasmuch as the Dead 
Sea continually attests that punishment, which Jude considers as enduring. 
There is a certain boldness in the expression, as properly it is not the cities 
and their inhabitants who are πρόκεινται. The genitive πυρὸς αἰωνίου may 
grammatically depend both on δεῖγμα and on δίκην. Most expositors (par- 
ticularly Wiesinger, Schott, Brickner) consider the second construction as 
the correct one, but hardly rightly: as, (1) δεῖγμα would then lose its exact 
definition ; (2) mip αἰώνιον always designates hell-fire, to which the con- 
demned are delivered up at the last judgment (see Matt. xxv. 41); (3) the 
juxtaposition of this verse with ver. 6, where the present punitive condition 
of the angels is distinguished from that which will occur afier the judgment, 
favors the idea that the cities (or rather their inhabitants) are here not 
designated as those who even now suffer the punishment of eternal jire.4 


1 Wiesinger incorrectly observes that ‘ by fire,” since precisely the contrary is the case. 
this connection we must also assume that those Wiesinger arrives at this erroneous assumption 
angels also suffer the punishment of eternal by taking δείγμα as equivalent to example. It 


680 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
But Jude could designate the cities as a δεῖγμα of eternal fire, considering 
the fire by which they were destroyed as a figure of eternal fire. Hofimann 
correctly connects πυρὸς αἰωνίου with δεῖγμα, but he incorrectly designates 
δεῖγμα πυρ. αἰων. as a preceding apposition to δίκην : “it may be seen in them 
(δείγμα = exhibition) what is the nature of eternal fire, inasmuch as the fire 
that has consumed them is enduring in its after-operations;” by this 
explanation nip αἰώνιον is deprived of its proper meaning. With δίκην 
ὑπέχουσαι the fact is indicated that they have continually to suffer punish- 
ment, since the period that punishment was inflicted upon them in the time 
of Lot;! corresponding to what is said of the angels in ver. 6.— Jdeiyya in 
N. T., ἅπ. dey. (Jas. v. 11, and frequently: ὑπόδειγμα), not = example, but 
proof, testimony, sign. ὑπέχειν likewise in N. T., aa, Aey.; 2 Mace. iv. 48, 
ζημίαν ὑπέχειν (2 Thess. 1. 9, δίκην riew). 

Ver. 8. Description of the sins of the false teachers; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 10. 
— ὁμοίως, 1.e., similarly as Sodom and Gomorrha, etc. — μέντοι expresses here 
no contrast (so earlier in this commentary: “notwithstanding the judgment 
which has come on those cities on account of such sins”), but it serves, as 
Hofmann correctly observes, appealing to Kiihner’s Gramm., II. p. 694, 
“simply for the strengthening of the expression, putting the emphasis on 
ὁμοίως ; those men, says Jude, actually do the same thing as the Sodomites.” 
- καὶ οὗτοι refers back to τινες ἄνθρωποι, ver. 4. — ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι only here and 
in Acts ii. 17, where it is used of prophetical dreams, according to Joel 
iii. 1. This meaning does not here suit, for Bretschneider’s explanation, 
 falsis oraculis decepti vel falsa oracula edentes,” is wholly arbitrary. Most 
expositors unite it closely with the following σάρκα μιαίνουσι, and understand 
it either de somniis, in quibus corpus polluitur (Vorstius), or of voluptuous 
dreams, appealing to Isa. lvi. 10 (LXX., ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι κοίτην, an inaccurate 
translation of the Hebrew 0°33¥ ὉΠ}, or of unnatural cohabiting (Oecu- 
menius). Jachmann (with whom Brickner agrees) understands it generally 
= “sunk in sleep, i.e., hurried along in the tumult of the senses,” appealing 
to the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 10 (ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ). Similarly Calvin: est meta- 
phorica loquutio, qua significat, ipsos tam esse habetes, ut sine ulla verecundia ad 
omnem turpitudinem se prostituant. But in all these explanations the expres- 
sion is only referred to the first clause of the following sentence; but this is 
opposed to the construction: it refers to both clauses, —else it would have 
been put directly with aivovor, —and denotes the condition in which and 
out of which they do those things which are expressed in the following 
clauses. It is unsatisfactory to keep in view only the negative point of 
ἐνυπνιάζεσθαι, the want of a clear consciousness ;? the positive point is chiefly 


is also entirely erroneous when it is asserted 
that πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκη is an evident type of 
hell-fire, since πῦρ αἰώνιον is itself hell-fire. 
To be compared with this is 3 Mace. ii, 5: ov 
«+. Zodouitas.. . πυρὶ . - - κατεφλεξας, παρά- 
δειγμα τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις καταστήσας; and 
Libanius in reference to Troy: κεῖται παρά- 
δειγμα δυστοχιας πυρὸς aiwviov. 

1 There is no necessity to derive this repre- 


sentation from Wisd. x. 7, and the various 
phenomena which lead to the supposition of a 
subterranean fire at the Dead Sea (see Winer’s 
Bibl. Realw.: todtos Meer). 

2 Hornejus: “ tam insipientes sunt, ut quasi 
lethargo sopiti non tantum impure vivant,” 
etc.; Arnaud: ‘* qui agissent sans savoir ce 
qu’ils font.” 


VERSE 8. 681 


to be observed, which consists in living in the arbitrary fancies of their own 
perverted sense, which renders them deaf to the truths and warnings of the 
divine word (so in essentials, Stier, Fronmiiller, Wiesinger, Schott, Briickner, 
Hofmann).! The reference to Isa. xxix. 10, LXX.: πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς κύριος κατα- 
νύξεως, is unsuitable (against Beza, Carpzov, and others), as here the discourse 
is not above a punitive decree of God. — σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσι, not their flesh, 
but generally the flesh, both their own and that of others: the thought refers 
back to ver. 7: ἐκπορνεύσασαι, etc. —Kupiornta δὲ ἀθετοῦσι, dédgac δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν, 
announces a new side of their sinful nature. As this verse is in evident 
connection of thought with ver. 10, where the words ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς... φθεί- 
povrat refer back to σάρκα μὲν μιαίν., SO κυριότης and δόξαι can only be here such 
things as suit the words ὅσα οὐκ οἴδασιν. It is thus incorrect to understand 
them of political powers (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Stier, and 
others), or of ecclesiastical rulers (Oecumenius),? or of human authorities 
generally, the two words being either taken as designations of concrete per- 
sons, or one of them as a pure abstraction; Arnaud: par κυριότητα il faut 
entendre l’autorité en général et par δόξας les dignités quelconques, les hommes 
méritant, par leur position, le respect et la considération.— Both expressions are 
to be understood as a designation of supermundane powers. Almost all 
recent expositors agree in this, although they differ widely in the more 
definite statement. These different explanations are as follows: (1) κυρι- 
ότης is taken as a designation of God or Christ, and δόξαι as a designation of 
the good angels (Ritschl); (2) the good angels are understood in both ex- 
pressions (Briickner) ; (8) κυριότης is understood in the first explanation, but 
δόξαι is explained of the evil angels (Wiesinger); (4) both expressions are 
understood as a designation of the evil angels (Schott). In order first cor- 
rectly to determine the idea κυριότης, the relation of ver. 8 to what goes before 
is to be observed. The judgments which have befallen the people (ver. 5), 
the angels (ver. 6), and the cities (ver. 7), are by Jude adduced as a testi- 
mony against the Antinomians (οὗτοι, ver. 8) mentioned in ver. 4, evidently 
because these persons are guilty of the same sins on account of which those 
judgments occurred. Since σάρκα μιαίνουσι evidently points back to ἐκπορνεύ- 
σασαι, ver. 7, and further to ἀσέλγειαν, ver. 4, it is most natural to refer κυριό- 
τητα ἀθετοῦσιν to μὴ πιστεύοντας, ver. 5, and, further, to τὸν μόνον δεσπότην... 
ἀρνούμενοι, ver. 4. Consequently, by xvpry¢—if one takes τὸν μόνον δεσπότην 
as a designation of God —is to be understood the Godhead ; or, if one under- 
stands τ. μ. 6. as a predicate to Ἰησ. Xp., Christ. If, now, it is assumed that 
δόξαι is an idea corresponding to κυριότης, and to be taken along with it, then 
by it the good angels are to be understood. But it must not be overlooked 
that the clause dééac δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν is separated from the preceding clause by 
δέ; and that ver. 9 leads to a different understanding of δόξαι. When in 


1 «"I"hose here spoken of are wakeful dream- that by κυριότης may also be understood ἡ τοῦ 
ers, so that they, when they should perceive κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίου τελευτή, and by δόξαι 
with their wakeful senses, have only dreams, also ἡ παλαία διαθήκη καὶ ἡ νέα; on 2 Pet. ii. 
and what they dream they esteem as the per- 10 he observes: δόξας, ἤτοι τὰς θείας φησι δυνά- 
ception of the wakeful spirit.” μεις, ἣ καὶ Tas ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ἀρχάς. 


2 Oecumenius, however, wavers, thinking 


682 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


ver. 9 it is said of the archangel Michael that he dared not κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν 
βλασφημίας against the Devil, this βλασφημίας evidently refers back to βλασφη- 
μοῦσιν, ver. 8, consequently the two ideas δόξας and διάβολος are brought 
together, so that from this the preference must be given to the explanation 
which understands by δόξας the diabolical powers, or the evil angels. That 
not ouly δόξαι, but also κυριότης, is a designation of evil powers, Schott incor- 
rectly appeals to the fact that in 2 Pet. ii. 10, and also here, the unchaste, 
carnal life of the false teachers is connected with their despising or rejection 
of κυριότης ; for although it is presupposed that the recognition of the rever- 
ence for κυριότης might restrain these men from the abuse of their fleshly 
nature, yet it does not follow from this that only evil spirits can be meant, 
since also the recognition of the reverence for the divine power restrains 
from the abuse of the corporeal senses which were created by God. Τὸ the 
identification of κυριότης and δόξαι ---- whether good or evil angels are to be 
understood — not only is the form of the expression opposed, Jude not unit- 
ing the two clauses by καί, but, as already remarked, separating them by δέ, 
but also the difference of the conduct of the Antinomians, whilst they de- 
spise (ἀθετοῦσιν ; 2 Pet.: καταφρονοῦσιν) the κυριότης, but blaspheme the δόξαι. 
The clearer this separation and distinction are kept in view, the less reason 
is there against deriving the exact meaning of δόξαι from ver. 9 (2 Pet. ii. 10 
from ver. 11), and consequently against understanding by it evil angels © 
(comp. Hofmann); only it must not be affirmed that Jude has used the 
expression δόξαι as a name for the evil angels as such, but only that, whilst 
so naming angels generally, he here means the evil angels, as is evident 
from ver. 9. That these may be understood by this designation, cannot be 
denied, especially, as Wiesinger points out, as Paul in Eph. vi. 12 names 
them ai dpyai, ai ἐξουσίαι, of κοσμοκράτορες, and says of them that they are ἐν τοῖς 
ἐπουρανίοις. ---- ἀθετοῦσιν . . . βλασφημοῦσιν]. The first expression is negative, the 
second positive; the Antinomians manifested the despising of κυριότης by 
the carnal licentiousness of their lives, whilst they fancied themselves 
exempt by χάρις (ver. 4) from the duty of obedience to the will of God (or 
Christ) as the κύριος requiring a holy life; but their blasphemy of the δόξαι 
consisted in this, that, on the reproach of having in their immorality fallen 
under diabolical powers, they mocked at them as entirely impotent beings. 


REMARK. — According to Ritschl’s opinion, the actions which Jude here 
asserts of the Antinomians represent directly only the guilt of their forerunners 
(namely, the Israelites, ver. 5; the angels, ver. 6; and the Sodomites, ver. 7), 
and his expressions can therefore only bee understood in an indirect and meta- 
phorical sense. To this conclusion Ritschl arrives (1) by explaining the second 
clause of ver. 10, that the Antinomians understood relations to be understood 
spiritually φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα, i.e., that they considered the blessings prom- 
ised in the kingdom of heaven as the blessings of sensual enjoyment; (2) by so 
understanding the relation of ver. 8 to the preceding, that δόξας βλασῴ. is to be 
referred back to ver. 7, κυριότ. ἀθετ. to ver. 6, and σαρκὰ μιαΐν to ver. 5. According 


1 Also in 2 Pet. ii. 10, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν καταφρονοῦντας by the intervening τολμηταὶ 
βλασφημοῦντες is separated from κυριότητος αὐθάδεις, 


VERSE 9. 683 


to his view, Jude finds the guilt of the Sodomites (ver. 7) to consist in this, 
that by the design of practising their lust on the angels, they blasphemed them; 
the guilt of the angels (ver. 6) in this, that they undervalued their own domin- 
ion; and the guilt of the Israelites (ver. 5) in this, that they had criminal 
intercourse with the impure daughters of Moab. Over against this, the guilt of 
the Antinomians consisted in this: (1) that they regarded immorality as a 
privilege of the kingdom of God, which they have in common with the angels; 
(2) that by referring their immoral] practice to the kingdom of God, they showed 
a depreciation of the dominion which belongs to Christ, or to which they them- 
selves are called; and (3) that by their ἀσέλγεια they were guilty of the defile- 
ment of those connected with them in the Christian Church. But both the 
explanation of the second clause of ver. 10, where there is no mention of the 
blessings of the kingdom of heaven, and the statement of the relation of ver. 8 
to what goes before, is incorrect, since in ver. 7 the Sodomites and the other 
cities are reproached, not with an evil intention, but with an actual doing; in 
ver. 6 the not preserving their dpy7, and the forsaking of their οἰκητήριον, are 
indeed reckoned as a crime to the angels, but specially on this account, because 
they did it—as τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις, ver. 7, shows —for the sake of éxzop- 
νεύειν: and, lastly, in ver. 5 the criminal intercourse with the daughters of 
Moab is not indicated as the reason of their ἀπώλεια, but their unbelief (μὴ 
πιστεύοντας). For these reasons Wiesinger has correctly rejected the explanation 
of Ritsch] as mistaken. — The view of Steinfass, expressed on 2 Pet. ii. 10, that 
the blasphemy of the δόξαι by the Antinomians consisted in their wishing to 
constrain the angels by charms to love-intrigues, is, apart from all other con- 
siderations, contradicted by the fact that neither in 2 Peter nor in Jude is there 
any reference to charms and love-intrigues with the angels. 


Ver. 9 places in a strong light the wickedness of this blasphemy (comp. 
2 Pet. ii. 11). They do something against the δόξαι, which even Michael 
the archangel did not venture to do against the Devil.—6 δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ 
ἀρχάγγεγος]. Michael, in the doctrine of the angels, as it was developed 
during and after the captivity by the Jews, belonged to the seven highest 
angels, and was regarded as the guardian of the nation of Israel; Dan. 
xii. 1, Jax 23.» Tay Sita Ww; comp. x. 13, 21; in the N. T. he is 
only mentioned in Rev. xii. 7. In the Book of Enoch, chap. xx. 5, he 
is described as “one of the holy angels set over the best part of the human 
race, over the people.” — dpyayyedoc only here and in 1 Thess. iv. 16 (Dan. 
xii. 1, Ixx., ὁ ἄρχων ὁ uéyac).1— ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ, K.7.2.]. This legend is found 
neither in the O. T., nor in the rabbinical writings, nor in the Book of 
Enoch; Jude, however, supposes ifwell known. Occumenius thus explains 
the circumstance: λέγεται τὸν Μιχαὴλ... τῇ τοῦ Μωσέως ταφῇ δεδιηκονηκέναι" τοῦ 
γὰρ διαβόλου τοῦτο μὴ καταδεχομένου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιφέροντος ἔγκλημα διὰ τὸν τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου 
φόνον, ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοὺ Μωσέως, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ συγχωρεῖσθαι αὐτῷ τυχεῖν τῆς ἐντίμου 
ταφῆς. According to Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv. 6, the grave of Moses was 
given to the special custody of Michael. This legend, with reference to 
the manslaughter committed by Moses, might easily have been formed, as 


1 See Winer’s Bibl. Reallex.: Angel, Michael. 


684 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


Oecumenius states it, “out of Jewish tradition, extant in writing alongside 
of the Scriptures” (Stier).1_ According to Origen (περὲ ἀρχῶν, iii. 2), Jude 
derived his account from a writing known in his age, ἀνάβασις τοῦ Μωσέως. 
Calvin, and others, regard oral tradition as the source; Nicolas de Lyra, 
and others, a special revelation of the Holy Ghost; and F. Philippi, a 
direct instruction of the disciples by Christ, occasioned by the appearance 
of Moses on the mount of transfiguration. De Wette has correctly observed 
that the explanation is neither to be derived from the Zendavesta (Herder), 
nor is the contest to be interpreted allegorically (σῶμα Μωσέως = the people 
of Israel, or the Mosaic law). — διακρινόμενος διελέγετο]. The juxtaposition of 
these synonymous words serves for the strengthening of the idea; by 
διελέγετο the conflict is indicated as a verbal altercation. —ob« ἐτόλμησε, he 
ventured not. — κρίσιν émevéyxew βλασφημίας]. Calovius incorrectly explains it 
by: ullionem de blasphemia sumere, the words refer not to a blasphemy 
uttered by the Devil, but to a blasphemy against the Devil, from which 
Michael restrained himself. — κρίσιν ἐπιφέρειν denotes a judgment pronounced 
against any one (comp. Acts xxv. 18: αἰτίαν ἐπιφέρειν). — κρίσιν βλασφημίας is 
a judgment containing in itself a blasphemy. By βλασφ., that saying — 
naely, an invective —is to be understood by which the dignity belonging 
to another is injured. Michael restrained himself from such an invective 
against the Devil, because he feared to injure his original dignity; instead 
of pronouncing a judgment himself, he left this to God. Herder: “ And 
Michael dared not to pronounce an abusive sentence.” — ἀλλ᾽ εἶπεν" ἐπιτιμῆσαι 
σοι κύριος, the Lord rebuke thee ; comp. Matt. xvii. 18, xix. 13, ete. According 
to Zech. iii. 1-3, the angel of the Lord spoke the same words to the Devil, 
who in the vision of Zechariah stood at his right hand as an adversary of 
the high priest Joshua (LXX. : ἐπιτιμῆσαι κύριος ἐν σοὶ διάβολε). 

Ver. 10. Description of the false teachers with reference to ver. 8 in 
contrast to ver. 9; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 12. — They blaspheme, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασι, 
what they know not: the supermundane, to which the δόξαι, ver. 8, belong, is 
meant. Hofmann: “they know about it, otherwise they could not blas- 
pheme it; but they have no acquaintance with it, and yet in their ignorance 
judge of it, and that in a blasphemous manner” (comp. Col. ii. 18, according 
to the usual reading). Those expositors who understand κυριότητα and δόξας 
of human authorities, are at a loss for an explanation of the thoughts here 
expressed; thus Arnaud: i est assez difficile de préciser, quelles étaient ces 


1 Schmid (Bibl. Theol., II. p. 149), Luth- 
ardt, Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, I. p. 340), 
Schott, Wiesinger (less definitely), think that 
the conflict consisted in Michael not permitting 
the Devil to exercise his power over the dead 
body of Moses, but withdrawing it from cor- 
ruption; for which an appeal is made to the 
fact that ‘*God had honored Moses to see in 
the body a vision of His entire nature’ (Hof- 
mann), and also that "" Moses was to be a type 
of the Mediator conquering death” (Schott), 
and that Moses appeared with Christ on the 
mount of transfiguration. In his explanation 


of this Epistle, Hofmann expresses himself 
to this effect, that Satan wished to prevent 
** Moses, who shared in the impurity of death, 
and who had been a sinful man, from being 
miraculously buried by the holy hand of God 
(through Michael).”’ 

2 See on this apocryphal writing, F. Phi- 
lippi (Das Buch Henoch, p. 166-191) who 
ascribes the composition of it to a Christian in 
the second century, and assumes that he was 
induced to it by this 9th verse in the Epistle of 
Jude; this at all events is highly improbable. 


VERSE 11. 685 


choses qu’ignoraient ces impies. —éoa δὲ φυσικῶς ἐπίστανται, a contrast to what 
goes before; corresponding to σάρκα μιαίνουσι, ver. 8, only here the idea is 
carried farther. Jachmann explains it: “the passions inherent in every 
one;” but this does not suit ἐπίστανται. De Wette, correctly. the objects of 
sensual enjoyment ; to which the σάρξ (ver. 8) especially belongs. By φυσικῶς 
(ax, dey. = of nature) ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα is prominently brought forward the fact 
that their understanding is not raised above that of the irrational animals, 
that to them, only the sensual is something known. There is no distinction 
between εἰδέναι and ἐπίστασθαι, as Schott thinks, that the former denotes a 
comprehensive knowledge, and the latter a mere external knowing (“they 
understand, namely, in respect of the external and sensual side of things, 
practically applied”); but these two verbs obtain this distinctive meaning 
here only through the context in which they are employed by Jude (comp. 
Hofmann). — év τούτοις φθείρονται]. ἔν, more significant than διά, designates 
their entire surrender to these things. — φθείρονται. Luther, they corrupt 
themselves; better, they destroy themselves, namely, by their immoderate 
indulgences.. In Luther’s translation the words ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα are incor- 
rectly attached to this verb. 

Ver. 11. The author interrupts his description of these ungodly men by 
a denunciation on them, which he grounds by characterizing them after the 
example of the ungodly in the O. T. (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 15 ff.).—obai abroic]. 
The same denunciation frequently occurs in the discourses of Jesus: “at 
once a threatening and a strong disapproval” (De Wette). With this οὐαί 
Jude indicates the judgment into which the Antinomians have fallen; it 
refers back to vv. 5-7. Wiesinger incorrectly understands it only as a mere 
“exclamation of pain and abhorrence.”! This denunciation of woe does 
not occur with an apostle; frequently in the O. T. — ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορ- 
ev@noav]. On the phrase: τῇ ὁδῷ τινος πορεύεσθαι, comp. Acts xiv. 16. (Acts 
ix. 31: πορ. τῷ φόβῳ τ. κυρίου.) τῇ ὁδῷ is to be understood locally (see Meyer 
on the above passages), not “instrumentally ” (Schott), which does not suit 
ἐπορεύθησαν. ---- ἐπορεύθησαν; preterite (Luther and others translate it as the 
present), because Jude represents the judgment threatened in οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς as 
fulfilled (De Wette-Briickner). Schott incorrectly explains it: “they have 
set out, set forth.” Many expositors find the similarity with Cain to consist 
in this, that, whereas he murdered his brother, these by seduction of the 
brethren are guilty of spiritual murder; so Oecumenius, Estius, Grotius 
(Cain fratri vitam caducam ademit ; illi fratribus adimunt aeternam), Calovius, 
Hornejus, Schott, and others. But this conversion into the spiritual is 
arbitrary, especially as the desire of seduction in these men is not specially 
brought forward by Jude. Other expositors, adhering to the murder com- 
mitted by Cain, think on the persecuting zeal of these false teachers against 
believers ; so Nicolas de Lyra, sequuntur mores et studia latronis ex invidia et 
avaritia persequentes sincerioris theologiae studiosos. As the later Jews re- 


1 Hofmann correctly Observes: ‘ovat has 21)." Asnot the first but the second is the 
evil in view, whether it be in the tone of com- case here, Hofmann should not have rejected 
passion which bewails it (Matt. xxiii. 15), or the explanation of De Wette. 
of indigvation which imprecates it (Matt. x1. 


686 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


garded Cain as a symbol of moral scepticism, so Schneckenburger supposes 
that Jude would here reproach his opponents with this scepticism; but 
there is also no indication of this in the context. De Wette stops at the 
idea that Cain is named as “the archetype of all wicked men;” so also 
Arnaud?! and Hofmann; but this is too general. Briickner finds the point 
of resemblance in this, that as Cain out of envy, on account of the favor 
shown to Abel, resisting the commandment and warning of God, slew his 
brother, so these false teachers resisted God, and that from envy of the 
favor shown to believers. But in the context there is no indication of 
the definite statement “from envy.” It is more in correspondence with the 
context to find the tertium compar. in this, that Cain, in spite of the warning 
of God, followed his own wicked lusts. Fronmiiller: “The point of com- 
parison is acting on the selfish impulses of nature, in contempt of the 
warnings of God.” --- καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν]. πλάνη, aS a 
sinful moral error, denotes generally a vicious life averted from the truth; 
comp. Jas. v. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 18 (Ezek. xxxiii. 16, LXX., translation of 
YW). ἐκχεῖσθαι in the middle, literally, to issue forth out of something, 
construed with εἴς τε; figuratively, to rush into something, to give one’s self up 
with all his might to something (Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 491, ὃ; εἰς ἡδονὴν 
ἐκχυθέντες; several proof passages in Wahl, Elsner, Wetstein); it is less 
suitable to explain the verb according to Ps. Ixxiii. 2, where the LXX. have 
ἐξεχύθη as a translation of 133W = to slip (Grotius: errare). The dative τῇ 
πλάνῃ is = εἰς τὴν πλάνην ; Schott incorrectly explains it as dativus instrumen- 
talis, since ἐξεχύθησαν requires a statement for the completion of the idea. 
The genitive μισθοῦ is, with Winer, p. 194 (E. T., 206), to be translated: 
for reward (see Grotius in loco); so that the meaning is: “they gave 
themselves up for a reward (i.e., for the sake of earthly advantage, thus 
from covetousness; Luther: ‘for the sake of enjoyment’) to the sin of 
Balaam;” thus most interpreters, also Briickner, Wiesinger, Hofmann. 
De Wette, on the contrary, after the example of Erasmus, Vatablus, and 
others, explains Βαλαάμ as a genitive dependent on τοῦ μισθοῦ; the dative τῇ 
πλάνῃ as = by means of the error; and ἐξεχύθησαν as an intransitive verb = 
“to commit excesses, to give vent to.” Accordingly, he translates the 
passage as follows: “By (by means of) the error (seduction) of the reward 
of Balaam, they have poured themselves out (in vice).” So also Hornejus: 
deceptione mercedis, qua deceptus fuit Balaam, effusi sunt.2, But this con- 
struction is extremely harsh, the ideas πλάνη and ἐξεχύθησαν are arbitrarily 
interpreted, and the whole sentence, so interpreted, would be withdrawn 
from the analogy of the other two with which it is co-ordinate.? Schott 
construes the genitive with πλάνῃ, whilst he designates it “as an additional, 


1 Arnaud: ‘J. compare seulement, d’une effusos esse, quia scilicet instar aquae difflu- 
manieére trés générale, ses adversaires a Cain, entis projecta sit eorum intemperies. 
sous le rapport de la méchanceté.”” 8 «The parallelism of the three clauses 
2 Calvin: “ dixit (Ap.), instar Bileam mer- requires that τῇ πλάνῃ ἐξεχύθησαν should re- 
cede fuisse deceptos, quia pietatis doctrinam main together, accordingly the genitive is 
turpis lucri gratia adulterant; sed metaphora, equivalent to ἀντὶ μισθοῦ ” (Stier). 
qua utitur, aliquanto plus exprimit; dixit enim 


VERSE 11. 687 
and, as it were, a parenthetically added genitive for the sake of precision,” 
and for this he supplies a πλάνῃ: “the error of Balaam, which was an error 
determined by gain.” This construction, it is true, affords a suitable sense, 
but it is not linguistically justified: it is entirely erroneous to take μισθοῦ 
as in apposition to Βαλαάμ ΞΞ ὃς μισθὸν ἠγάπησεν, 2 Pet. li. 15 (Fronmiiller, 
Steinfass). — De Wette, chiefly from Rev. ii. 14, finds the point of resem- 
blance in this, that “ Balaam as a false prophet and a seducer to unchastity 
and idolatry, and contrary to the will of God, went to Balak, and that he is 
also particularly considered as covetous and mercenary.” But there is no 
indication that the men of whom Jude speaks enticed others to idolatry. 
Hofmann observes that this clause calls the sin of those described as “a 
devilish conduct against the people of God, the prospect of a rich reward 
being too alluring to Balaam to prevent him entering into the desires of 
Balak to destroy the people of God;” but in this explanation also a refer- 
ence is introduced not indicated by the context. That Jude had primarily 
in view the covetousness of Balaam, μισθοῦ shows; blinded by covetousness, 
Balaam resisted the will of God; his resistance was his πλάνη, in which, and 
in the motive to it, the Antinomians resembled him (Briickner, Wiesinger) ; 
whether Jude had also in view the seduction to unchastity (comp. Num. 
xxxi. 16; Fronmiiller), is at least doubtful; and it is still more doubtful to 
find the point of resemblance in this, that the Antinomians “had in view a 
material gain to be obtained by the ruin of the Church of God” (Schott). — 
καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο]. ἀντιλογία, contradiction; here, seditious 
resistance. ἀπώλοντο does not mean that “they lost themselves in the ἀντιλ. 
of Korah,” but “that they perished;” accordingly, τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ is the 
instrumental dative. The point of resemblance is not, with Nicolas de 
Lyra, to be sought in this, that the opponents of Jude formed propter 
ambitionem honoris et gloriae sectas erroneas; or, with Hornejus, that they 
assumed the munus Apostolorum ecclesiae doctorum; or, with Hofmann, that 
they, as Korah (“ whose resistance consisted in his unwillingness to recognize 
as valid the law of the priesthood of Aaron, on which the whole religious 
constitution of Israel rested ’’), “desired to assert a liberty not restricted :” 
but it consists in the proud resistance to God and His ordinances, which the 
Antinomians despise. By Schott’s explanation: “that they opposed to 
the true holiness a holiness of their own invention, namely, the holiness 
alleged to be obtained by disorderly excess,” a foreign reference is intro- 
duced.1 The gradation of the ideas ὁδός, πλάνη, ἀντιλογία, in respect of 
definiteness, is not to be denied; but there is also a gradation of thought, 
for although the point about which Cain, Balaam, and Korah are named is 


1 Ritschl finds the point of resemblance 
between the Antinomians and the three named 
in this, “that they, as these, undertook to 
worship God in a manner rejected by Him.” 
But it is erroneous that ‘‘ the Korahites exhib- 
ited their assumption of the priesthood by the 
presentation of an offering rejected by God;”’ 
it is incorrect that by ὁδός is indicated ‘the 


religious conduct” of Cain; and it is incorrect 
that the utterance of the curse willed by 
Balaam is to be considered as a religious trans- , 
actiun. Moreover, in the description of the 
Antinomians there is no trace indicating that 
their view was directed to a particular kind of 
worship, 


688 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
one and the same, namely, resistance to God, yet this appears in the most 
distinct manner in the case of Korah. 

Ver. 12. A further description of these false teachers; comp. 2 Pet. ii.’ 
13, 17. ---- οὗτοί εἰσιν [ol] ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες]. In the reading oi, ὄντες 
is either (with De Wette) to be supplied; thus, “these are they who are 
σπιλάδες in your ἀγάπαις ;" or of is to be joined to συνευωχούμενοι (comp. vv. 
16,19; so Hofmann). That by ἀγάπαις the love-feasts are to be understood, 
is not to be doubted. Erasmus incorrectly takes it as = charitas, and Luther 
as a designation of alms.— The word σπιλάδες is usually explained = cliffs (so 
also formerly in this commentary). If this is correct, the opponents of Jude 
are so called, inasmuch as the love-feasts were wrecked on them (De Wette- 
Briickner, Wiesinger), i.e., by their conduct these feasts ceased to be what 
they ought to be; or, inasmuch as they prepared destruction for others, who 
partook of the love-feasts (Schott, and this commentary). It is, however, 
against this interpretation, that omAdc does not specially indicate cliffs, but 
has the more general meaning rocks (Hofmann: “ projecting interruptions of 
the plain”), and the reference to being wrecked is not in the slightest degree 
indicated.1— Stier and Fronmiiller take σπιλάδες a8 = σπῖλοι, 2 Pet. ii. 13; this 
is not unwarranted, as omAdc, which is properly an adjective (comp. σποράς, 
φυγάς, λογάς), may be derived as well from σπῖλος = filth (comp. γῆ σπιλάς = 
clayey soil; so Sophocles, Trach., 672, without γῆ), as from σπίλος = a rock 
(comp. moAvomAdc). In this case σπιλάδες may either be taken as a substan- 
tive = what is filthy, spots (these are spots in your agapé; so Stier and Fron- 
miiller), or as an adjective, which, used adverbially (see Winer, p. 433, 464), 
denotes the mode and manner of συνευωχεῖσθαι (80 Hofmann). The former 
construction merits the preference as the simpler. — Apart from other consid- 
erations, σπῖλοι καὶ μῶμοι in 2 Peter are in favor of taking σπιλάδες here in the 
sense of σπῖλοι. ---- συνευωχούμενοι]. The verb εὐωχεῖσθαι 2 has not indeed by itself 
a bad meaning, signifying to eat well, to feast well; but it obtains such a mean- 
ing here by the reference to the agapé. The σὺν placed before it may either 
refer to those addressed, with you, see 2 Pet. ii. 18, where ὑμῖν is added to 
the verb (Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann); or to those here de- 
scribed by Jude, feasting together, i.e., with one another. Against the first 
explanation is the objection, that according to it the εὐωχεῖσθαι in their agapé 
would render those addressed also guilty (so formerly in this commentary); 
but against the second is the fact that the Libertines held no special love- 
feasts with one another, but participated in those of the church. The 
passage, 2 Pet. ii. 13, is decisive in favor of ‘the first explanation. — The 
connection of ἀφόβως is doubtful; De Wette-Brickner, Arnaud, Schott, 


1 The explanation of Arnaud: * les rochers 
continuellement battus par les flots de la mer 
et souillés par son écume” (after Steph.: 
omtAas), is unsuitable; since, when the Lib- 
ertines are called cliffs, this happens not 
because they are bespattered and defiled by 
Others, but because others are wrecked on 
them. 

2 An explanation of this word is found 


in Xenophon, Memorabilia, lib. 111.: ἔλεγε 
(namely, Socrates) δὲ καὶ ὡς τὸ εὐωχεῖσθαι ἐν 
τῇ ᾿Αθηναίων γλώττῃ ἐσθίειν κάλοιτο. Τὸ δὲ εὖ 
προσκεῖσθαι, ἔφη, ἐπὶ τῷ ταῦτα ἐσθίειν ἄτινα 
μήτε τὴν ψυχὴν, μήτε τὸ σῶμα λυποίη, μήτε 
δυσεύρετα εἴη; ὥστε καὶ τὸ εὐωχεῖσθαι τοῖς 
κοσμίως διαιτωμένοις ἀνετίθει, However, 
εὐωχεῖσθαι sometimes occurs in classical 
Greek in a bad sense. 


VERSE 12. 689 


Fronmiiller, unite it with συνευωχούμενοι; Erasmus, Beza, Wiesinger, Hof- 
mann, with ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. In this commentary the first connection 
was preferred, “because the idea συνευωχ. would otherwise be too bare.” 
This, however, is not the case, because if the verse is construed as it is by 
Hofmann, it has its statement in what goes before; but if σπιλάδες is taken 
as a substantive, as it is by Stier and Fronmiiller, then cvvevwy, is more pre- 
cisely determined by the following ἀφόβως. . . ποιμαίνοντες, whilst it is said 
that they so participate in the agapé that their feasting was an ἀφόβως ποιμαί- 
νεῖν ἑαυτούς. Erasmus takes the latter words in a too general sense: suo 
ductu et arbitrio viventes; Grotius, Bengel, and others give a false reference 
to them after Ezek. xxxiv. 2, understanding “that these feed themselves 
and not the church” (comp. 1 Pet v. 2), and accordingly Schneckenburger 
thinks specially on the instructions which they engage to give: but this 
reference is entirely foreign to the context. According to De Wette, it is a 
contrast to “whilst they suffer the poor to want” (1 Cor. xi. 21); yet there 
is also here no indication of this reference. — νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι is to be under- 
stood no more of the agapé (De Wette, Schott), but generally. veg. ἄνυδρ. 
are light clouds without water, which therefore, as the addition ὑπὸ ἀνέμων 
mapagepouevac Makes prominent, are driven past by the wind without giving 
out rain; comp. Prov. xxv. 14. This figure describes the internal emptiness 
of these men, who for this reason can effect nothing that is good; but it 
seems also to intimate their deceptive ostentation;! the addition serves for 
the coloring of the figure, not for adducing a special characteristic of false 
teachers; Nicolas de Lyra, incorrectly: quae a ventis circumferuntur, i.e., 
superbiae motibus et vanitatibus. —In the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 17, two 
images are united, πηγαὶ dvvdpo καὶ ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι. ---- Accord- 
ing to the reading περιφερόμεναι, the translation would be, “driven hither and 
thither ;” παραφερόμεναι denotes, on the other hand, driven past. A second 
figure is added to this first, by which the unfruitfulness (in good works) 
and the complete deadness of these men are described; in the adjectives the 
gradation is obvious. — δένδρα φθινοπωρινά are not a particular kind of trees, 
such as only bear fruit in autumn, but trees as they are in autumn, namely, 
destitute of fruit (De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, ete.). It is arbi- 
trary to desert the proper meaning of the word, and to explain φθινοπωρινά 
according to the etymology of φθίνειν by arbores quarum fructus perit illico = 
frugiperdae (Grotius; so also Erasmus, Beza, Carpzov, Stier: “which have 
cast off their fruit in an unripe state”).—dxapra; not “whose fruit has 
been taken off” (De Wette), but “which are without fruit” (Briickner). 
Whether they have had fruit at an earlier period, and are now destitute of 
it,is not said. “The impassioned discourse proceeds from marks of unfruit- 
fulness to that of absolute nothingness” (De Wette). dic ἀποθανόντα]. Beza, 
Rosenmiiller, and others arbitrarily explain dic by plane, prorsus. Most 
expositors retain the usual meaning: yet they explain the idea twice in dif- 


1 Calvin: ‘*‘ Vanam ostentationem taxat, daturos se doctrinam salvificam, sed veritate 
quia nebulones isti, quum multa promittunt, destituuntur et quovis circumaguntur doc- 
intus tamen aridi sunt.”’ Bullinger: ‘* Habent trinae vento.” 
enim speciem doctorum veritatis, pollicentur 


690 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


ferent ways; either that those trees are not only destitute of fruit, but also 
of leaves (so Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others) ; or that they bear no fruit, 
and are accordingly rooted out; or, still better, dic is to be referred to the 
fact that they are not only fruitless, but actually dead and dried up.1 That 
Jude has this in his view, the following ἐκριζωθέντα shows. Several exposi- 
tors have incorrectly deserted the figure here, and explained this word either 
of twofold spiritual death (Beza, Estius, Bengel, Schneckenburger, Jachmann, 
Wiesinger, Schott), or of death here and hereafter (so Grotius: neque hic 
bonum habebunt exitum, neque in seculo altero), or of one’s own want of spir- 
itual life and the destruction of life in others. All these explanations are 
without justification. ἐκριζωθέντα is in close connection with δὶς ἀποθανόντα ; 
thus, trees which, because they are dead, are dug up and rooted out,? thus 
incapable of recovery and of producing new fruit (Erasmus: quibus jam 
nulla spes est revirescendi). This figure, taken from trees, denotes that those 
described are not only at present destitute of good works, but are incapable 
of producing them in the future, and are “on this account rooted out of the 
soil of grace” (Hofmann). It is incorrect when Hofmann ® in the applica- 
tion refers δὶς ἀποθανόντα to the fact that those men were not only in their 
early heathenism, but also in their Christianity, without spiritual life. 
There is no indication in the context of the distinction between heathenism 
and Christianity. Arnaud observes not incorrectly, but too generally: tous 
ces mots sont des métaphores énergiques pour montrer le neant de ces impies, la 
légereté de leur conduite, la stérilité de leur foi et l’absence de leurs bonnes euvres. 

Ver. 13. Continuation of the figurative description of those false teachers. 
The two images here employed characterize them in their erring and dis- 
ordered nature. —xipara ἄγρια θαλάσσης, x.7.A.]. Already Carpzov has cor- 
rectly referred for the explanation of these words to Isa. lvii. 20; the first 
words correspond to the Hebrew 5.2 0°32; the following words: ἐπαφρίζοντα 
τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας, to the Hebrew Θ᾽ Ὶ WD VDD WAM, only Jude uses the 
literal word where Isaiah has the figurative expression.— ἐπαφρίζειν, properly, 
to foam over. luther well translates it: which foam out their own shame. — 
αἰσχύνας, not properly vices (De Wette); the plural does not necessitate this 
explanation, but their disgraceful nature, namely, the shameful ἐπιθυμίαι 
which they manifest in their wild lawless life; not “their self-devised wis- 
dom” (Schott).— From the fact that the Hebrews sometimes compared 
their teachers to the sea (see Moses, Theol. Samar., ed. Gesenius, p. 26), it 
is not to be inferred, with Schneckenburger and Jachmann, that there is 
here a reference to the office of teachers; this is the more unsuitable as the 
opponents of Jude hardly possessed that office. — ἀστέρες πλανῆται]. These 
two words are to be taken together, wandering stars; that is, stars which 


1 Fronmiiller, incorrectly: ‘trees which 
have at different times suffered fatal injury by 
frosts or from insects.” 

2-Fronmiiller, linguistically incorrect: 
“trees which still remain in the earth, but 
which are shaken loose by their roots.” 

8 “Tf, when they became Christians, a fresh 


sap from the roots, by which they were rooted 
in the soil of divine grace, appeared to estab- 
lish them in a new life out of their heathen 
death in sin, yet this new life was to them only 
a transition into a second and now hopeless 
death,” 


VERSES 14, 15. 691 


have no fixed position, but roam about. The analogy with the preceding 
metaphors requires us to think on actual stars, with which Jude compares 
his opponents; thus on comets (Bretschneider, Arnaud, Stier, De Wette, 
Hofmann) or on planets (so most of the early commentators, also Wiesinger). 
The latter opinion is less probable, because the πλανᾶσθαι of the planets is 
less striking to the eye than that of the comets. It is incorrect “in the 
explanation entirely to disregard the fact whether there are such ἀστέρες 
πλανῆται in heaven or not” (so earlier in this commentary, after the example 
of Schott), and to assume that Jude, on account of their ostentation (Wie- 
singer, Schott), designates these men as stars, and by πλανῆται indicates their 
unsteady nature. De Wette incorrectly assumes this in essentials as equiv- 
alent with ᾿πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι, 2 Tim. iii. 13. Bengel thinks that we 
are in this figure chiefly to think on the opaqueness of the planets; but such 
an astronomical reference is far-fetched. Jachmann arbitrarily explains 
ἀστέρες = φωστῆρες, Phil. ii. 15, as a designation of Christians. Several ex- 
positors also refer this figure to the teaching of those men, appealing to 
Phil. ii. 15 and Dan. xii. 8:1 but the context gives no warrant for this. — 
οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοὺ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται]. This addition may grammatically be 
referred either to what immediately precedes, thus to the ἀστέρες πλανῆται; 
or to the men who have been described by the figures used by Jude. It is 
in favor of the first reference (Hofmann: “Jude names them stars passing 
into eternal darkness, comets destined only to vanish”), that a more precise 
statement is also added to the preceding figure; thus the addition ὑπὸ ἀνέμων 
παραφερόμεναι to νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι, x.7.2. But it is against it, that the expression 
chosen by Jude is evidently too strong to designate only the disappearance 
of comets, therefore the second reference is to be preferred (Wiesinger; 
comp. ver. 6), which also the parallel passage in 2 Pet. ii. 17 favors. The 
addition of the genitive τοῦ σκότους to ὁ ζύφος serves to strengthen this idea. 
Vv. 14,15. The threatening contained in the preceding verses is con- 
firmed by a saying of Enoch. — ἐπροφήτευσε δὲ καὶ τούτοις]. καί refers either to 
τούτοις : “of these as well as of others;” according to Hofmann, of those 
who perished in the deluge; or it is designed to render prominent ἐπροφ. 
τούτοις in reference to what has been before said: “yea, Enoch also has 
prophesied of them.” Hofmann, in an entirely unwarrantable manner, 
maintains that there can be no question that καί puts its emphasis on the 
word before which it stands. — προφητεύειν generally with περί here construed 
with the dative, as in Luke xviii. 31, in reference to these. — ἔβδομος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδὰμ 
Ἐνώχ]. ἔϑδομος has hardly here the mystical meaning which Stier gives it: 
“The seventh from Adam is personally a type of the sanctified of the seventh 
age of the world, of the seventh millennium, of the great earth sabbath.” 
Also in the Book of Enoch, he is several times expressly designated as “ the 
seventh from Adam” (1x. 8, xciii. 3); not in order to characterize him as 
the oldest prophet (Calvin, De Wette, and others), but to mark his impor- 
tance by the coincidence of the sacred number seven (Wiesinger, Schott). 


1 80 already Oecumenius: δοκοῦντες eis τίας μόνον τοῦ κυρίου φέρονται δογμάτων (Hor- 
ἄγγελον φωτὸς μετασχηματίζεσθαι . . . ἀπενάν- nejus and others). 


692 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


The saying of Enoch here quoted is found, partly verbally, at the beginning 
of the Book of Enoch (i. 9): “ And behold He comes with myriads of saints 
to execute judgment on them, and He will destroy the ungodly and judge 
all flesh concerning all things which the sinners and ungodly have committed 
and done against Him.”! These words are taken from a speech in which 
an angel interprets a vision which Enoch has seen, and in which he an- 
nounces to him the future judgment of God. 


The question, from what source Jude has drawn these words, is very differ- 
ently answered by expositors. It is most natural to conceive that he has taken 
them from the Book of Enoch; but then this pre-supposes that this book, 
although only according to its groundwork, is of pre-Christian Jewish, and not 
of Jewish-Christian origin, which is also the prevailing opinion of recent critics. 
Hofmann, who denies the pre-Christian composition of the book, says, ‘‘ Jude 
has derived it, in a similar manner as the incident between Michael and Satan, 
from a circle of myths, which has attached itself to Scripture, amplifying its 
words.”? Yet, on the other hand, it is to be observed that it is difficult to 
conceive that oral tradition should preserve such an entire prophetic saying. 
F. Philippi thinks that Enoch in Gen. v. 22 is characterized as a prophet of 
God, and, as such, prophesied of the impending deluge; and that Jude, by 
reason of a deeper understanding of Gen. v., could add the exposition already 
become traditionary, and speak of a prophecy of Enoch, the reality of which 
was confirmed to him by the testimony of the Holy Ghost ; or that this prophecy 
of Enoch was imparted to the disciples by Christ Himself, when the already 
extant tradition concerning Enoch might have afforded them occasion to ask 
the Lord about Enoch, perhaps when he was engaged in delivering His eschato- 
logical discourses. But both opinions of Philippi evidently rest on suppositions 
which are by no means probable. As an example of the method by which the 
older expositors sought to rescue the authenticity of the prophecy, let the expo- 
sition of Hornejus suffice: haec quae Judas citat, ab Enocho ita divinitus 
prophetata esse, dubium non est ; sive prophetiam illam ipse alicubi scripsit et 
scriptura illa vel per Noam ejus pronepotem in arca, vel in columna aliqua 
tempore diluvii conservata fuit sive memoria ejus traditione ad posteros propa- 
gata, quam postea apocrypho et fabulosa illi libro autor ejus inseruerit, ut 
totum Enochus scripsisse videretur. 


ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν; comp. Zech. xiv. 5; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Heb. xii. 22; 
(μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων) Rev. v. 11.— Ver. 15. ποιῆσαι κρίσιν ; see Gen. xviii. 25; 
John v. 27. -- τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς]. The pronoun αὐτῶν, according to the Rec., 
would refer to the people of Israel. — dv ἠσέβησαν; the same verb in Zeph. ἡ 
iii. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 6; here used as transitive; comp. Winer, p. 209 CEPT: 
222). The frequent repetition of the same idea is to be observed: ἀσεβεῖς, 
ἀσεβείας, ἠσέβησαν, and finally again doeBeic; a strong intensification of un- 
godliness. —rdv σκληρῶν]. σκληρός, literally, dry, hard, rough; here in an 
ethical sense, ungodly, not equivalent to surly (Hofmann); in a somewhat 


1 The passage thus stands in De Sacy’s et litigat cum omnibus carnalibus pro omnibus 
version: “ οὐ venit cum myriadibus sanctorum, quae fecerunt et operati sunt contra eum pec- 
ut faciat judicium super eos et perdat impios _—_ catores et impii.” 


VERSE 16. 693 


different sense, but likewise of sayings, the word is used in John vi. 60. — 
kar’ αὐτοῦ is by Hofmann in an unnecessary manner attached not only to 
ἐλάλησαν, but also to ἠσέβησαν, in spite of Zeph. iii. 11, where it is directly 
connected with ἠσέβησαν, which is not here the case. The sentence emphat- 
ically closes with ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς, which is not, with Hofmann, to be 
attracted to what follows. 

Ver. 16. A further description of the false teachers attached to the 
concluding words of the prophetic saying: τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺ ; 
comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18, 19. — οὗτοί εἰσι, as in vv. 10 and 19 with special emphasis. 
—yoyyvorai]. ἅπ. dey. in N. T.; the verb is of frequent occurrence; Oecume- 
nius interprets it: οἱ ix’ ὀδόντα καὶ ἀπαῤῥησιάστως τῷ δυσαρεστουμένῳ ἐπιμεμφόμενοι. 
Jude does not say against whom they murmur; it is therefore arbitrary 
to think on it as united to a definite special object as rulers (De Wette), 
or, still more definitely, ecclesiastical rulers (Estius, Jachmann). Briickner 
correctly observes that “the idea is not to be precisely limited.” Every 
thing which was not according to their mind excited them to murmuring. 
The epithet μεμψίμοιροι (a7. Aey.), dissatisfied with their lot, gives a more precise 
statement; denoting that they in their pretensions considered themselves 
entitled to a better lot than that which was accorded to them. The parti- 
cipial clause, κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι, is added to the substantive, 
which, whilst it unfolds the reason of their dissatisfaction and murmuring, 
at the same time expresses a kind of contrast: they were dissatisfied with 
every thing but themselves. Calvin: qui sibi in pravis cupiditatibus indulgent, 
simul difficiles sunt ac morosi, ut illis nunquam satisfiat. The view of Grotius 
is entirely mistaken, that Jude has here in view the dissatisfaction of the 
Jews of that period with their political condition. — καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ 
ὑπέρογκα]. ὑπέρογκα only here and in the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 18. 
Luther: “proud words” (verba tumentia, in Jerom., contra Jovian., i. 24); 
comp. Dan. xi. 36, LXX.: καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα; such words are meant 
which proceed from pride, in which man exalts himself, in contrast to 
the humility of the Christians submitting themselves to God. To this 
the parallel passage (2 Pet. ii. 18) also points, where the expression 
ὑπέρογκα refers to boasting of ἐλευθερία. A participial clause is again added 
to this assertion, as in the former clause, likewise expressing a kind of 
contrast: @avudlovrec πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν. The expression θαυμάζειν πρόσωπα 
is in the N. T., ἀπ. Aey.; in the-O. T., comp. Gen. xix. 21, LXX.: ἐθαύμασά 
σου τὸ πρόσωπον; Hebrew, 295 8W; in other passages the LXX. have λαμβάνειν 
τὸ mp. In Lev. xix. 15, the LXX. translate 325. δὲ) by λαμβ. τὸ πρ.; on the 
other hand, 23 VI by θαυμάζειν τὸ πρόσωπον. Whilst in the first passage 
the friendly attitude of God toward Abraham is expressed, in the second 
passage it has the bad meaning of partiality. It has also this meaning 
here: it is to be translated to render admiration to persons (Herder: to 
esteem; Arnaud: “admirer, honorer”). In this sense θαυμάζειν occurs in 
Ecclus. vii. 29.1. This partial treatment of persons consisted in the flattering 


1 Comp. Lysias, Orat. 31, where it is said τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς θαυμάζει, ἀλλ᾽ ἶσον ἑαυτὸν παρέχει 
of death: οὔτε yap τοὺς πονηροὺς ὑπερορᾷ, οὔτε πᾶσιν. 


694 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


homage of those who hoped for some advantage from them, as ὠφελείας χάριν 
shows. It is unwarranted, with Hofmann, to interpret θαυμάζειν πρώσωπα: 
“to gratify and to please a person.” Proud boasting and cringing flattery 
form indeed a contrast, but yet are united together. Calvin: magnilo- 
quentiam taxat, quod se ipsos fastuose jactent: scd interea ostendit liberali esse 
ingenio, quia serviliter se dimittant. — θαυμάζοντες is not parallel with πορευόμενοι, 
but refers in a loose construction to αὐτῶν ; by this construction the thought 
gains more independence than if θαυμαζόντων were written. — ὠφελείας χάριν 
belongs not to the finite verb, but to the participle. 

Vv. 17, 18. Jude now turns to his readers, comforting? and exhorting 
them in reference to the ungodly above described; see 2 Pet. iii. 2, 3. — 
ὑμεῖς δέ, an emphatic contrast to those above mentioned. — μνήσθητε presup- 
poses the words meant by Jude known to the readers, as learned from the 
apostles. —rdv ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημένων]. ῥῆμα; the word as an expression of 
thought. The προ in προειρημένων designates these words not as those which 
predict something future, but which were already spoken before (so also 
Hofmann). — ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων, x.7.4.]. Jude would hardly have so expressed 
himself were he himself an apostle, which several expositors certainly do 
not grant, explaining this mode of expression partly from Jude’s modesty 
and partly from the circumstance that, except himself and John, the other 
apostles were already dead. — Ver. 18. ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν]. ὑμῖν here renders it 
probable that Jude means such sayings as the readers had heard from the 
mouth of the apostles themselves; yet the words which follow are not 
necessarily to be considered as a literally exact quotation, but may be a 
compression of the various predictions of the apostles concerning this 
subject.2 — ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου [rod] xpovov]. A designation of the time directly 
preceding the advent of Christ. In the reading τοῦ ypovov, ἐσχάτου is the 
genitive neuter, as in Heb. i. 1. -- ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται, only here and in 2 Pet. 
iii. 3, a word occurring only in later Greek; the LXX. have translated 
pox>yN by ἐμπ., as they render Soynn by ἐμπαίζειν. Mockers, that is, men 
to whom the holy (not merely the resurrection, Grotius) serves for mockery. 
λαλεῖν ὑπέρογκα is a ἐμπαίζειν of the holy (which Hofmann without reason 
denies); this is naturally united with a surrender to their own lusts; 
therefore κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι τῶν ἀσεβειῶν]. τῶν ἀσεβειῶν, aN 
echo of the saying of Enoch, is placed emphatically at the close, in order to 
render prominent the character and aim of ém#vuia.— That the apostles 
in their writings frequently prophesied of the entrance of heretical and 
ungodly men into the church, is well known; comp. Acts xx. 29; 1 Tim. 
iv.1; 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff.; yet ἐμπαίζειν is not elsewhere stated as a characteristic 


1 Why Jude should not have intended to 
comfort his readers by reminding them of 
what the apostles had, at an earlier period, 
said of the appearance of these men, as he here 
describes them, cannot be perceived (against 


prove that Jude will here give a verbal quota- 
tion, and that this must be a writing earlier 
directed to the readers. ὅτι ἐλ, ὑμ. simply 
introduces the statement of the contents of 
the ῥήματα which were earlier spoken by the 


Hofmann) 
2 Entirely without reason, Schott maintains 
that the intervening words, ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, 


apostles. The plural is not to be referred to 
one apostle, and the verb does not in the least 
degree indicate that this word was written. 


VERSE 19. 695 


mark of these men; this is only the case in 2 Pet. iii. 8, where, however, 
the mockery is referred only to the denial of the advent of Christ. 

Ver. 19. Final description of the false teachers, not specially, but 
according to their general nature. —ovroi εἰσιν, parallel with ver. 16.— οἱ 
ἀποδιορίζοντες. The article marks the idea as definite. “these are they who,” 
etc. — ἀποδιορίζειν, a word which occurs only in Aristotle’s Polit., iv. 8, 9, is 
here very differently explained; with the reading ἑαυτούς it would most 
naturally be taken as equivalent to separate; thus, “who separate them- 
selves from the church, whether internally or externally ” (Wahl); without 
ἑαυτούς it is explained either as = to secede (Fronmiiller), or = to cause 
separations and divisions, namely, in the church (Luther: “who make 
factions;”” De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger; so also in this commentary). 
Neither explanation is, however, justified from the use of the word διορίζειν. 
It is still more arbitrary, with Schott, to explain it: “who make a dis- 
tinction, namely, between the pneumatical (Pneumatikern), as what they 
consider themselves, and the psychical (Psychikern), as what true Christians 
regard them;” for there is no indication of such a distinction made by 
them. If we base the explanation on the significance of διορίζειν, the word 
may be understood as = to make definitions. But in this case what follows 
must be closely connected with it, by which the mode and manner of their 
doing so is stated, namely, that they do so as psychical men, who are without 
the πνεῦμα. Hofmann gives to the verb the meaning: “to determine (define) 
something exactly in detail,” and then assumes that the preceding genitive 
τῶν ἀσεβειῶν depends on οἱ ἀποδιοριζόμενοι, Which may well be the case, because 
a participle standing for a substantive may as well as a substantive govern 
the genitive. According to this explanation, Jude intends to describe those 
men as persons “ who make impieties the object of an exercise of thought 
exactly defining every thing, and so are the philosophers of impieties.” 
This explanation is condemned by the harsh and artificial construction 
which it requires.1— ψυχικοὶ, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες]. πνεῦμα is not man’s natural 
spirit,” for Jude could not deny this to his opponents; and to explain μὴ 
ἔχοντες in the sense, “I might say that they have no spirit at all” (Fron- 
miiller), is completely arbitrary. It is rather to be understood of the Holy 
Spirit (De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Hofmann); the want of the article 
and of an epithet, such as ἁγίου or Θεοῦ, is no objection against this interpre- 
tation, since the simple word πνεῦμα is often used in the N. T. as a desig- 


τ Certainly the dependent genitive may 
precede the governing substantive; but this 
union is here rendered impossible by the inter- 
vening οὗτοι. A participle also, taken as a 
substantive, may sometimes govern a genitive; 
but this is only found with the neuter, and then 
only rarely. Add to this that οὗτοί εἰσιν here 
corresponds to the οὗτοί εἰσιν in vv. 16 and 12, 
and accordingly must stand at the beginning 
of the sentenee. 

2 Schott explains πνεῦμα as “ spiritual life 
in the distinctive character of its being, that it 


is self-controlled in personal self-conscious- 
ness and self-determination,” and so equiva- 
lent to ‘‘free personality of the spirit” (!); 
but this free personality, Schott further ob- 
serves, is not denied to them in the sense as 
‘if they were actually deprived of it,” but 
only that it ‘does not attain permanence and 
reality in actual performance.” ‘This dis- 
torted interpretation is contradicted by the 
fact that Jude simply denies to them πνεῦμα 
EXEL. 


696 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


nation for the objective Holy Spirit. It is erroneous to affirm that by this 
interpretation the conclusion of the description is too flat, for nothing worse 
can be said of a man who desires to be esteemed a Christian than that he 
wants the Holy Spirit. Moreover, only so understood does πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες 
correspond to the preceding ψυχικοί, to which it is added as an explanation; 
ψυχικοί they are, inasmuch as their natural spiritual life left to itself is 
under the unbroken power of the σάρξ; see 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; Jas. iii. 15. 


REMARK. — Schott attempts to prove that the three verses, 12, 16, and 19, 
beginning with οὗτοι, refer to the threefold expression contained in ver. 11, 
namely, in this manner: that the Antinomians, in showing themselves to be 
σπιλάδες in their agapé (ver. 12) resembled Cain; that in being yoyyvora? μεμψί- 
μοιροι, and out of greed for material gain indulging in mercenary flattery (ver. 
16), they resembled Balaam; and that in establishing a self-invented, ungodly 
sanctity in opposition to the divinely appointed and divinely effective Christian 

_Sanctity (ver. 19), they resembled Korah. This juxtaposition, however, is any 
thing but appropriate, resting, on the one hand, on incorrect explanations; and, 
on the other hand, on the arbitrary selection of separate points. It is incorrect 
to affirm that the similarity of the Antinomians with Cain consisted in this, 
that what he did corporally they did spiritually ; there is contained: in this 
rather a distinction than a similarity. It is arbitrary to bring forward only the 
last clause of ver. 16, which reproaches the Antinomians with flattery, and 
which may also be found in Balaam; whereas the other expressions in the 
verse do not suit in the least degree. And, lastly, it is erroneous so to interpret 
ver. 19 that the Antinomians were accused of the setting-up of a false sanctity; 
even were this correct, yet the sanctity claimed by them is of a totally-different 
nature from that to which Korah and his company laid claim. 


Vv. 20, 21. Exhortation to the readers respecting themselves. — ὑμεῖς δὲ, 
ἀγαπητοί, as in ver. 17, in contrast to the persons and conduct of those men- 
tioned in the last verse. — ἐποικοδομοῦντες, «.7.A.]. The chief thought is con- 
tained in the exhortation ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρῆσατε, to which the preceding 
ἐποικοδομοῦντες... προσευχόμενοι is subordinate, specifying by what the fulfil- 
ment of that exhortation is conditioned. Yet it is asked, whether προσευ- 
χόμενοι is connected with ἐποικοδομοῦντες, or is annexed as an independent 
sentence to the following imperative; and whether ἐν πν. ἁγίῳ is to be united 
with ἐποικοδ, or with προσευχόμενοι. These questions are difficult to decide 
with perfect certainty. Wiesinger and Schott, apparently correctly, unite 
ἐν mv. dy. With προσευχόμενοι, and these taken together with what follows. 
Hofmann, on the other hand, unites ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ with what goes before, 
and προσευχόμενοι With what follows. In this construction, however, the 
structure of the participial clause becomes too clumsy; also ἐν mv dy, be- 
comes superfluous, as ἐποικοδομεῖν ἑαυτούς cannot take place otherwise than 
ἐν πνεύματι dy. It is true, Hofmann observes that ἐν mv. ay. is superfluous 
with προσευχόμενοι, and that Jude could not intend to say how they should 
pray, but that they should pray. But this is erroneous, for τηρεῖν ἑαυτούς here 
mentioned depends not only on this, that one should pray, but that one 
should pray rightly, that is, ἐν my, dy. Wiesinger correctly observes, that 


VERSES 20, 21. 697 


the first clause gives the general presupposition; the second, on the other 
hand, the more precise statement how rypjoare has to be brought about. — 
τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει]. Both the adjective and the verb show that πίστις is 
here meant not in a subjective (the demeanor of faith, Schott), but in an 
objective sense (Wiesinger: “appropriated by them indeed as their personal 
possession, yet according to its contents as παραδοθεῖσα ;" so similarly Hof- 
mann). — ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτούς]. When verbs compounded. with ἐπί are 
joined with the dative, as here, this for the most part is used for ἐπί τί, more 
rarely for ἐπί τινι (see Winer, p. 400 f. [E. T., 4807). If the first is here the 
case, then ἐποικοδομεῖν τῇ πίστει is to be interpreted, with Wiesinger : “ build- 
ing on πίστις, so that πίστις is the foundation which supports their whole 
personal life, the soul of all their thinking, willing, and doing” (so also 
hitherto in this commentary);! comp. 1 Cor. iii. 12: ἐποικοδομεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν θεμέ- 
λιον τοῦτον. If, on the other hand, the second is here the case, then it is to 
be explained, with Hofmann, “their faith is the foundation which supports 
their life; and accordingly, in the further development of their life it should 
ever be their care that their life rests upon this foundation;” comp. Eph. 
li. 20: ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων. The first is, however, to 
be preferred, because, as already remarked, with these verbs the dative 
mostly stands for ἐπί τι. Both explanations come essentially to the same 
thing. ---- ἑαυτούς is not here = ἀλλήλους ; the discourse is indeed of a general, 
but not precisely of a mutual, activity ; ἑαυτούς with the second person creates 
no difficulty; comp. Phil. ii. 12. ---- ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι]. The ex- 
pression προσεῦχ. ἐν mv. ay., it is true, does not elsewhere occur, but similar 
combinations are not rare (λαλεῖν ἐν rv. dy., 1 Cor. xii. 3; see Meyer in loc.) ; 
it means so to pray that the Holy Spirit is the moving and guiding power 
(Jachmann, unsatisfactorily: “ praying in consciousness of the Holy Ghost”); 
comp. Rom. viii. 26. — ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρῆσατε]. Θεοῦ may either be the 
objective genitive (Vorstius: charitas Dei passiva, i.e., qua nos Deum diligi- 
mus; so also Jachmann, Arnaud, Hofmann, and others), or the subjective 
genitive, “the love of God to us” (so De Wette, Schott, Wiesinger, Fron- 
miiller); in the latter case the thought is the same as in John xv. 9, 10; 
this agreement is in favor of that interpretation, nor is the want of the 
article opposed to it (against Hofmann). This keeping themselves in the 
love of God is combined with the hope of the future mercy of Christ, which 
has its ground, not in our love to God, but in God’s love to us (comp. Rom. 
v. 8 ff.). — προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου, «.7.A.]. On mpoodey., Tit. ii. 15.— 
τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is the mercy which Christ will show to His own at His 
coming. Usually the idea ἔλεος is predicated not of the dealings of Christ, 
but of God; in the superscriptions of the Pastoral Epistles and of the Second 
Epistle of John, it is referred to God and Christ. —eic ζωὴν αἰώνιον may be 
joined either With ἔλεος (De Wette), or with προσδεχόμενοι (Schott), or with 
τηρήσατε (Stier, Hofmann); since the imperative clause forms the main point, 


1 πίστις is the foundation, the Gewedrce on at the bottom is that they are not yet on all 
which Christians should build themselves sides of their life on this foundation. 
(more and more), by which the representation 


098 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
the last-mentioned combination deserves the preference, especially as both in 
προσδέχεσθαι and in ἔλεος ᾽Ιησ. Xp. the reference to ζωὴ αἰώνιος is already con- 
tained. The prominence here given to the Trinity, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, Θεός, Ἰησοῦς 
Χριστός, as frequently in the N. T., is to be observed. With the exhortation 
contained in vy. 20, 21, Jude has accomplished what he in ver. 3 stated to be 
the object of his writing. 

Vy. 22, 23. The exhortations contained in these verses refer to the con- 
duct of believers toward those who are exposed to seduction by the ἀσεβεῖς 
(ver. 4) (De Wette); not toward the false teachers themselves (Reiche), 
for these are of such a kind (ver. 12) that the church should have nothing 
to do with them. The best-attested text is that which codex A affords: καὶ 
otc μὲν ἐλέγγετε διακρινομένους " οὺς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, ode δὲ ἐλεεῖτε 
(Lachmann and Tischendorf, ἐλεῶτε) ἐν φόβῳ ; see critical remarks. --- οὗς μὲν 

ος ob¢ δέ instead of τοὺς μὲν ... τοὺς δέ, see Winer, p. 100. According to 
this reading, three classes of the seduced are distinguished, and toward each 
a special conduct is prescribed., It is, however, asked whether, as Briickner, 
Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, and others assume, there is a gradation from the 
curable to the incurable (a dubitantibus minusque depravatis ad . . . insana- 
biles, quibus opem ferre pro tempore ab ipsorum contumacia prohibemur. Reiche); 
or conversely from the incurable to the curable. In reference to the first 
class it is said: ob¢ μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους]. The verb ἐλέγχειν denotes to 
rebuke some one’s sins by punishing him. The object for which this is done 
is not indicated in the word itself; it may be to lead the sinner to the 
acknowledgment of his sinus, and thus to repentance, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24; 
2 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. i. 13; or it may also be condemnation, comp. particularly 
Jude, ver. 15 (John xvi. 8; Tit. i. 9). The explanation of Oecumenius is 
incorrect: φανεροῦτε τοῖς πᾶσιν τὴν ἀσέϑειαν αὐτῶν. Those who are to be pun- 
ished are denoted διακρινομένους. Both the translation of the Vulgate, judi- 
catos, and the interpretation of Oecumenius, κακείνους εἰ μὲν ἀποδιΐστανται ὑμῶν 
ἐλέγχετε, are incorrect. διακρίνεσθαι signifies in the N. T. either to contend, 
which is here unsuitable, or to doubt, and is opposed to πιστεύειν ; comp. Matt. 
xxi. 21; Mark xi. 23; Rom. iv. 20; especially Jas.i.6. This last passage 
shows that, although not equivalent to ἀπιστεῖν, it denotes the condition in 
which ἀπιστία has the preponderance over πίστις, the latter being a vanishing 
point. It is evident that Jude does not consider the διακρινόμενοι as weak 
believers (Schott), because, with reference to them, he will employ no other 
method than ἐλέγχειν (not παρακαλεῖν, or something similar) ; those seduced 
are in his view such as (punishment apart) are to be left to themselves.? 
In reference to the second class it is said: od¢ δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες. 
Their condition is not stated, but it is to be inferred from the conduct to be 
observed towards them. Toward those belonging to this class a σώζειν is to 


᾿ 


1 When Hofmann says, “that διακρίνεσθαι 
cannot have this meaning, requires no proof,” 
he makes an entirely groundless assumption. 

2 In the reading of the Rec.: ots μὲν ἐλεεῖτε 
διακρινόμενοι, we are obliged to explain δια- 
κρίνεσθαι as = distinguished. Luther: ‘‘and 


make this distinction, that ye compassionate 
some;’’ or, more exactly, ‘‘ compassionate the 
one, making a distinction,’ namely from oth- 
ers. ‘But διακρινόμενοι must be passive, since 
not διακρίνεσθαι, but only διακρίνειν has the 
meaning to distinguish. 


VERSES 22, 23. 699 
be employed, but of such a nature as is more precisely stated by ἐκ πυρὸς 
ἁρπάζοντες]. ἐκ πυρός is not from the fire of future judgment (Oecumenius, 
Fronmiiller), but πῦρ is the present destruction, in which they already are 
(Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott); ἁρπάζειν denotes hasty, almost violent, snatch- 
ing out, and indicates that those are already in extreme danger of perdition; 
comp. Amos iv. 11; Zech. iii. 2. Distinguished from the διακρινομένοις, the 
second class are to be considered as those who have not yet lost the faith, 
but have, through fellowship with the Antinomians, been enticed to their 
licentious life; these are to be rescued. σώζετε is evidently in contrast to 
ἐλέγχετε, and denotes them to be such as one may certainly hope to rescue, 
provided one snatches them with violence, and tears them out of this fellow- 
ship. In reference to the third class, Jude prescribes ἐλεεῖν (on the form 
ἐλεᾶτε, see Winer, p. 82 [E. T., 857). This verb in the N. T. never means 
only “to have compassion” (Schott), but always to compassionate one with. 
helpful love, as also ἔλεος is always used only of active compassion; so that 
with ἐλεεῖτε the exact contrary is said to what Luther finds expressed, when 
he explains it: “let them go, avoid them, and have nothing to do with 
them.” By this is denoted rather the helpful and saving benevolence by 
which the erring are again to be brought back to the right way. As this 
ἐλεεῖν makes a fellowship necessary with those upon whom it is exercised, 
Jude defines the same more precisely by ἐν φόβῳ; accordingly, they must not 
be wanting in foresight, lest they suffer injury themselves,! and he adds the 
participial sentence as an explanation of this ἐν φόβῳ: μισοῦντες καὶ, K,7.A,? 
This exhortation shows that Jude considers the third class as those who are 
indeed already involved, but who, by active compassion, may again be re- 
established; it is not so bad with them as with those toward whom only 
ἐλέγχειν is to be employed; but also it is not yet so bad as with those who 
can only be rescued by hastily snatching them. 


Hofmann considers the reading of δὲ: καὶ ob¢ μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους od¢ δὲ 
σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὗς dé ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, as the correct one. In his expla- 
nation of this reading he distinguishes not three, but only two classes, assuming 
that only the first, but not the second οὖς dé stands opposed to οὗς μέν: and that 
this latter οὺς δέ is to be considered rather as a resumption of the object men- 
tioned in od¢ μέν. This opinion is, however, erroneous, since, according to it, 
the third οὖς is understood differently from the first and second οὖς, namely, as 
a pure relative pronoun; and since, in a highly arbitrary manner, “ ἔν 968» is 
explained as a consequence, united with an imperativé ἐλεᾶτε to be taken from 
ob¢ éAedre:”’ “whom ye compassionate, them compassionate with fear.’’ Also 


1 Schott is entirely mistaken when he says 
that ἐλεῖν denotes here “" ἃ compassion which 
has, and may have, its definite peculiarity no 
longer in an impulse to help, but only ina fear 
of acting wrongly, and in consequence of re. 
ceiving injury ;” in other words, a compassion 
which is no compassion. 

2 According to the reading of the Rec., ἐν 
φόβῳ belongs to σώζετε. Some expositors 


(Grotius, Stier, and others) incorrectly ex- 
plain it of the fear of the persons to be res- 
cued; correctly Arnaud: ‘‘c’est ἃ dire, pre- 
nant garde que, tout en cherchant & les con- 
vertir, ils ne vous séduisent pas vous-mémes,”’ 
Reiche incorrectly, with the reading A, sepa- 
rates ἐν φόβῳ from éAeare, and joins it with 
μισοῦντες, Whilst it would attract to it a very 
superfluous addition. 


700 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


the explanation of the first member of the sentence: “the readers are to com- 
passionate the one with distinction,” is to be rejected, since it has against it 
N. T. usage, according to which διακρίνεσθαι is never used as the passive of 
διακρίνειν in the sense of “‘to distinguish.” 


The addition μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα is correctly 
explained by Oecumenius: προσλαμβάνεσθε.. . . αὐτοὺς... μετὰ φόβου, περισκεπτό- 
μενοι μήπως ἡ πρόσληψις τούτων... λύμης ὑμῖν γένηται αἰτία. ---- καί, even, gives 
greater emphasis to the thought. The expression τὸν χιτῶνα is to be under- 
stood in a literal, and not in a figurative sense (Bullinger: eruvias veteris 
Adami, concupiscentias et opera carnis). χιτῶν is the undergarment worn next 
the skin, and which, by means of its direct contact with the flesh unclean by 
unchastity, etc., is itself soiled (σπιλόω only here and in Jas. iii. 6); comp. 
Rey. iii. 4. — This garment is to the author the symbol of whatever, by 
means of external contact, shares in the moral destruction of those men.? 

Vv. 24, 25. Conclusion of the Epistle by a doxology. —7r6 δὲ δυναμένῳ]. 
The same commencement of the doxology in Rom. xvi. 28. — ὑμᾶς]. Were 
αὐτούς the correct reading, we could hardly do otherwise than refer it to the 
last-mentioned οὗς dé, to which it is unsuitable, as they are not ἄπταιστοι, who, 
as such, require only φυλάσσειν. That Jude actually wrote αὐτούς, but that “in 
the flight of devotion he has turned from his readers, and speaks of them 
in the third person ” (De Wette), is highly improbable. — ἀπταίστους]. ἅπ. Aey.; 
literally, who strikes not against; then figuratively, who stumbles not, does 
not offend; here in the moral sense as πταίω, Jas. 11. 10, 111. 2; Vulgate: 
sine peccato. —xal στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὑτοῦ ἀμῶμους]. Schott correctly 
remarks on καί: The second effect is the ultimate result of the first, so that 
καὶ might be rendered by and so, and accordingly. δόξα is here the glory of 
God, as it will be manifested at the day of judgment. On στῆσαι ἀμώμους, 
comp. 1 Cor. i. 8; Col. i. 22; 1 Thess. iii. 18.. The meaning is: “who can 
effect it that ye may appear as ἄμωμοι before His judgment-seat.” — ἐν ἀγαλλι- 
dos. mentions the condition in which Christians will then be found; comp. 
1 Pet. iv. 13.— Ver. 25. μόνῳ Θεῷ, see ver. 4; John v. 44; Rom. xvi. 27; 
1 Tim. i. 17. ---- σωτῆρι ἡμῶν marks, in connection with διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xp., the essen- 
tial Christian element in the idea of God; on owrfp as a designation of God, 
comp. 1 Tim. i. 1. Schott incorrectly joins μόνῳ Θεῷ with σωτῆρι ἡμῶν, as if 
it meant, “to Him who alone is God, in such a manner that He is our 
Saviour;” and the reason which he assigus, “because μόνος Θεός is never 
used by itself, but always occurs as a designation of God relative to other 
attributes,” is contradicted by John v. 44; also by 1 Tim. i. 17 and Jude 
ver. 4. — διὰ Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ belongs to σωτῆρι ἡμῶν (Schott), not to δόξα, x.7.A. 
(Wiesinger) ; in this latter case it would be put after ἐξουσία. --- δόξα, μεγαλω- 


1 Both in the reading of the Rec. andinthe 1Cor. v. 6!). 
reading of C, this addition is surprising; one 2 Calvin: “‘ vult fideles non tantum cavere a 
may regard it, with Jachmann, as the ad- vitiorum contactu, sed ne qua ad eos contagio 
versative reason of σώζετε (though ye hate) ; pertingat, quicquid affine est ac vicinum, 
or, with De Wette, as the real reason (since fugiendum esse admonet.”’ 
ye hate, for which De Wette appeals to 


VERSES 24, 25. 701 


σύνη, k.7.A.]. δόξα and κράτος occur frequently in the New-Testament doxol- 
ogies (see 1 Pet. iv. 11); μεγαλωσύνη and ἐξουσία only here; μεγαλωσύνη 
corresponds to the Hebrew ou; comp. Deut. xxxii. 8, LXX.: δότε μεγαλω- 
σύνην τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν. --- πρὸ παντὸς τοὺ αἰῶνος]. By these words, wauting in the 
Rec., the idea of eternity is expressed in the most comprehensive manner. 
Not ἔστω, but ἐστέ (De Wette, Schott), is to be supplied; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 11. 
— ἀμῆν, the usual conclusion of doxologies, as in Rom. i. 15; 1 Pet. iv. 11, 
etc.; it stands in the Epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews, probably also 
in 2 Peter, as here, at the end of the Epistle. 





4] 


ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


Te 
CHAPTER I. 
Ver. 1. 


1. The salutation of this Epistle differs in the form of expression from those 
which are found in the letters of Paul: (a) in that Paul in all his epistles, 
except 1 and 2 Thessalonians, describes himself as an apostle (so generally), or 
as a servant of Jesus Christ, while James calls himself a servant of God and the 
Lord Jesus Christ, but does not designate himself as an apostle; (b) in that 
James addresses a wide-extended body of Christians, not those limited within a 
particular city or district; (c) in that James uses the word χαίρειν, which Paul 
never employs. In the Pauline salutations this verb is only suggested by the 
words which bear in them the contents of it: ‘‘Grace and peace to you.” — 
2. The absence of the word ἀπόστολος does not prove that the author was 
not an apostle, for Paul does not always use this title in speaking of himself 
(comp. Phil. i. 1, where only the word δοῦλος is found, and 1 and 2 Thessa- 
lonians, where there is no descriptive word). But if James who was the head 
of the church in Jerusalem, was not the same person as James the son of 
Alphzeus, it is probable that he, and not the apostle, was the writer of the 
Epistle: jirst, because the character of the letter answers to the character which 
is given of him in the early writings; and, secondly, because his position as 
related to Jewish Christians was such as to make it more probable that he 
would address them. —3. That he was not the same person with James the son 
of Alphzeus, is indicated by the reasons presented by Huther in his Introduction. 
The reason, therefore, why he omits the word apostle, is that he did not belong 
to the apostolic company. But it may be regarded as somewhat remarkable, 
if he was, in the strict sense, the brother of the Lord, that he should not have 
given himself this title, which, as it would seem, would have added authority 
to his words. The only satisfactory explanation which can be given of the 
omission of the title is, that, after the death and ascension of Jesus, the earthly 
relationship sank into a kind of insignificance, as the Divine glory of Jesus 
impressed itself more deeply on the minds of all His disciples alike. We see 
Jesus Himself thus rising in His thought above the earthly and family relation, 
as He committed His mother at the crucifixion, not to her own sons, but to 
John the son of Zebedee (comp. John xix. 25-27). May we not find in the very 
phrase which James uses (a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ)—a 

703 


704 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


phrase which so completely separates Jesus from himself, and so closely unites 
Him with God—an indication that he appreciated the change, as we might 
say, from the earthly to the heavenly relationship? The time had come, long 
before this letter was written, when the words of Jesus were realized in their 
full meaning: ‘*‘ Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, 
and sister, and mother.’’ —4. The expression, ‘‘ to the twelve tribes which are of 
the dispersion, ’’ is to be understood, with Huther, as showing that the readers 
for whom the letter was designed were Jewish Christians living outside of 
Palestine. 


10 
Vv. 2-18. 


1. The Epistle has no introductory passage corresponding with those which 
are found in the Pauline letters. It begins with exhortations and statements 
respecting trials, which prepare the way for all that follows. The emphasis on 
the word joy in the opening exhortation may be accounted for by the contrast 
between this idea and the idea naturally connected with πειρασμοί. The writer 
would urge the readers to consider that which seems to be only an evil and dis- 
tressing, a matter altogether of joy. It is possible, however, that the position of 
χαράν in the sentence may be owing to some intended connection in the writer’s 
mind between this substantive and the verb χαίρειν. As he sends the readers a 
greeting which involves the thought of joy, he exhorts them to count even their 
trials as grounds of rejoicing. —2. The πειρασμοί here referred to, being described 
by the adjective ποικίλοι, are doubtless the various kinds of trials or tests of 
character which were likely to befall the readers. To a considerable extent, 
they were connected with persecutions or evils which came upon the Christians 
of that time from without, and thus they answer to the θλίψεις of Rom. v. 3. 
But there is nothing in the words here used which limits the reference to 
these. The correspondence of vv. 2, 3, with the passage in Rom. v. 3, 4, how- 
ever, cannot fail to be noticed. —The verb περιπέσητε, to fall into so as to be 
encompassed by, suggests the idea of a complete involvement in the testing 
trials of which the writer speaks. It was this involvement in the trials which 
made these trials, in an especial sense and degree, a testing of the readers’ faith 
(τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως). --- 8, The participle γινώσκοντες is causal, and is to be 
rendered since you know, rather than whilst you may know, as Huther gives it. 
It gives the ground on which they may well count the falling into trials a matter 
of joy. 

4, Τὸ δοκίμιον is regarded by Grimm as equivalent in this place to τὸ δοκιμάζειν, 
the proving or testing. This explanation of the word is given by many com- 
mentators, as intimated by Huther in his note, and is favored by A. R. V. and 
A. V. It is also favored by Beyschlag in his edition of Huther. It is clear, 
however, that in 1 Pet. i. 7, —the only other passage in the N. T. in which the 
word occurs, —it is to be understood as approvedness. It is thus equivalent to 
doxtun, as that word is probably to be explained in Rom. ν. 4. The double yse of 
the verb δοκιμάζειν by the N. T. writers, and the double possibility of its mean- 
ing, make the decision as to the meaning of the noun here quite difficult. 
Whichever explanation is adopted, the main idea of the passage will not be 
greatly changed. If dox. means proving, the readers are reminded that the 
proving or testing of their faith, which comes through the πειρασμοί, works out 
the result of steadfastness. If, on the other hand, it means approvedness, their 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 705 


tested or approved faith, which is the effect of the πειρασμοί, is declared to 
accomplish the same result.—In Rom. v. 4, steadfast endurance is repre- 
sented as working out tested character; here, tested character, approved faith, 
works out steadfast endurance. The two statements are alike true. Steadfast- 
ness in trials naturally leads to the result of a character which is approved as 
the consequence of tests which it has successfully met, and then the latter 
enables the man more easily and victoriously to persevere in his endurance. — 
5. The thought of ver. 4, which is set forth in the form of a new exhortation, 
is closely related to that of ver. 3 as subordinate to ver. 2. The trials serve to 
test and establish faith; faith as thus tested serves to further steadfast endur- 
ance; the perfect development of endurance is essential to the perfect develop- 
ment of the man in the Christian life. The Christian readers may, therefore, 
well count it all joy when they fall into manifold testing trials, because these 
lie, in this way, in the line of the growth of complete character. The épyov of 
ὑπομονῇ is that in and by which it works out its legitimate and natural result. 
—6. The end in view of the τέλειον ἔργον of ὑπομονῆ is that the man may be 
τέλειος καὶ ὁλόκληρος: the former of these words referring rather to the development 
towards the limit of completeness, the latter to the filling out to the fulness of 
character in all its parts, while the following phrase presents the latter idea on 
its negative side. , 

7. The fifth verse is probably connected in thought with those which pre- 
cede, and immediately with the fourth. This is indicated by the verb λείπεται 
following λειπόμενοι, The supposed case of lacking wisdom is made prominent 
among the possible wants or deficiencies, because wisdom lies near the founda- 
tion of all development towards completeness, and so is necessary in that line of 
development in which the tests and trials particularly referred to in this passage 
work to their best result. — Wisdom, as the word is here used, seems to 
mean that fundamental element of the Christian life which, in itself, sets the 
possessor of it apart from the evil world; the true apprehension of things, which 
works out into right living. If one is fully endowed with this, there is a guid- 
ing principle in the soul which will lead to the right use of all things, and will 
be the means of developing the man toward perfection. With this wisdom, the 
man will make even the πειρασμοῖ work out the end of ὑπομονή; that is, will turn 
the things which seem to be only evil, into good and a cause of joy. —8. In 
case of felt deficiency, the Christian reader is directed to ask God for the supply 
of the want, and the assurance of receiving such supply is given him. It is 
worthy of notice, that the words of the writer are all in the line of the joyous 
greeting which the writer offers to his Christian brethren. They may count 
the apparent evils of their experience a matter of joy, for they bring, when met 
and used with the true wisdom, the steadfast endurance which tends towards 
perfection of character; and if there is any want of this wisdom, nothing needs 
to be done but to ask it from God, who will certainly and liberally give it. The 
freeness and fulness of God’s giving are represented here by very striking 
expressions, —the adverb ἅπλως, simply, conveying the idea, as Grimm happily 
expresses it, of being ‘‘led solely by his desire to bless’? (the idea of liberal 
giving, suggested in the translation of A. V. and R. V., is rather implied, in a 
secondary way, than distinctly set forth, in the Greek word); and the participle 
ὀνειδίζοντος, reproaching, upbraiding, presenting the thought of such reproaches 
as connected with unworthiness on the part of the petitioners to ask for gifts, 
or possibly with their failure to profit by past gifts, or their want of thankful- 
ness in receiving them, or even with the number of such gifts already bestowed, 


106 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


as would indicate a want of readiness to give, and as were often uttered by men 
when asked for help or favor. No such reproaches are experienced as we ask 
of God. The confidence in God’s willingness to answer prayer, which Jesus 
awakened in the minds of his disciples, continued with them ever afterwards, 
The legal James, as well as the loving John, was prepared to say to every 
Christian, as the Lord Himself had done, ‘‘ Ask, and ye shall receive.’”’ The 
soul in want had but to ask of God for the filling-up of its imperfection, and 
the promise was, ‘‘it shall be given.’? —9. The asking, however, must be in 
faith. This is put in the form of a new exhortation (ver. 6); but evidently 
the exhortation is intended, in its connection with what precedes, to indicate 
the manner in which the gift just mentioned should be sought. The faith, also, 
should be with no doubting. The explanation of μηδὲν διακρινόμενος given by 
Huther is the true one. This is shown by the words which describe the doubter . 
in the following clause. The mind is not to be drawn this way and that, by 
questionings or uncertainties, with a prevailing tendency to believe that the 
answering gift will not be given in response tothe prayer. The petitioner’s 
faith must correspond to the Divine impulse towards giving. 

10. The second sentence of ver. 6 gives a reason for the exhortation to ask 
with no doubting. The meaning of this sentence seems, however, to go beyond 
the limits of the participial clause μηδὲν diaxp.e The latter clause is connected 
immediately with the matter of faith in the act of prayer, but this second sen- 
tence apparently covers the sphere of the inward life. The Christian should 
ask in faith with no wavering in his mind, for the man whose whole mind is in 
this wavering and doubting state does not possess the calm and peaceful inner 
life which is the true condition of the child of God. The Christian life is 
a life of trust; it is the calmness and confidence of the untroubled sea. The 
doubter, or the man who is in a wavering state, is necessarily thrown, out of 
this condition — like the waves which are driven and tossed by the winds —and 
is, therefore, without one of the prime characteristics of the Christian life. 
Particularly as connected with prayer, he is without an element which is made 
prominent and essential in the conditions of the promise of answers to prayer. 
The man who prays in this doubting way has, therefore, no right to expect the 
fulfilment of his request (ver. 7).—11. Ver. 8, which is an appositional and 
explanatory supplement to the expression that man of ver. 7, and thus to the 
expression he that doubteth of ver. 6, sets forth still more emphatically the same 
idea as the ground of the exhortation of ver. 6a. Such a man has, as it were, 
two souls, and accordingly will be likely to move in opposite directions in his 
life and conduct, —now with impulses towards God, now towards the world, 
but, by reason of the want of firm and established faith, prevailingly and finally 
towards the world.—12. Vv. 9-11 seem necessarily to be connected with the 
passage which precedes, because the subject of πειρασμός is continued in ver. 12. 
In themselves, however, they apparently turn to a new subject. The explana- 
tion which appears to meet the demands of the case most satisfactorily is that 
which makes ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινός refer to the Christian in his depressed condition 
as viewed from the standpoint of the world’s judgment, — poverty, slavery, 
ignoble birth, ete., —and ὁ πλούσιος to the rich as a prominent class among the 
exalted men of the unbelieving world; and that which supplies with ὁ πλούσιος 
the indicative of καυχᾶσθαι from the previous imperative, making ver. 10a an 
affirmative sentence. In that age the outward, earthly condition of the 
majority of believers must, in itself and by reason of the oppressions experi- 
enced from the rich and powerful of the world, have constituted, in a peculiar 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. TOT 


sense and measure, a πειρασμός, such a one as was most likely to disturb and 
distress the minds of Christian believers. The writer singles out this peculiar 
πειρασμός as a special example, and bids the believer who is. subjected to it 
rejoice in that exaltation which Christianity brings to him in this condition, 
through his new and higher life, and the hope of the future glory; whereas the 
rich man of the world, on the other hand, rejoices in what is really his humilia- 
tion, for his glory is a perishing one.—13. With this understanding of vv. 
9-11, the connection of ver. 12 with those verses becomes apparent. The stead- 
fast endurance, under the πειρασμός alluded to, works out the result of the 
consummated and completed exaltation — that which belongs to the heavenly 
world. And so of all similar steadfast endurance: blessed is the man who has 
it and manifests it; for when the result in character is fully accomplished, and 
_ the man has become approved, he will receive the crown of life, i.e., eternal life 
as his crown and reward. 

14. At ver. 13 the thought turns to the other side of the matter of πειρασμός, 
the drawing towards sin. God may bring us, or suffer us to be brought, into 
circumstances which may bear with them a solicitation to evil, and He may 
allow this in order to strengthen character through steadfast endurance. But the 
solicitation to evil itself does not come from Him. The thought here, as also in 
the former case, is presented in the form of an exhortation. This is doubtless 
to be explained in connection with the prevailing hortatory character of the 
Epistle. In vv. 14, 15, however, the construction changes to affirmative and 
declaratory sentences, a fact which shows the underlying purpose of the writer, 
and the movement of his main thought. —15. The connection of ἀπείραστος in 
this passage with πειρασμός and πειράζω seems to show that, in the writer’s use of 
the word, the idea of temptation is to be discovered. It thus means cannot be 
tempted with (R. V. text), rather than untried in (R. V. marg.). With either 
sense of the word, however, this clause is introduced as a proof that we cannot 
properly say that we are tempted of God. As God cannot be tempted by evil, 
He cannot tempt any one to evil; or, if the other meaning be adopted, as God 
is untried, unversed in evil things, as His inner life is wholly outside of the 
sphere of evil, He cannot be a solicitor to evil: evil must have a source like 
itself. —16. The good side of πειρασμός, its impelling power towards ὑπομονή, 
its working force in the development of right character towards perfection, 
comes from God. He puts the testing trials in the way of His followers as they 
move along their course; and He does this in order that they may be strength- 
ened. But the bad side of πειρασμός has no connection with Him. On the con- 
trary, He is the source of good only, and of all good. The bad side must be 
allied with evil, and this lies in the heart of man, — in the desire or lust which 
moves the man to sin.—17. The writer does not carry sin back in these 
words to its final and earliest source. As Alford remarks, he takes up the 
matter at a point lower down the stream than Paul does in the Epistle to 
the Romans, or, we may add, than Christ does as represented in the Gospel of 
John, and in contrast to the originating of sin, in any given case or man, by a 
solicitation to evil from God, he declares that the cause of the sin is the lust of 
the man, which, in the πειρασμός, lays hold of the bad side, and leads the whole 
man after itself. —18. By θάνατος in ver. 15, there can be little doubt that 
eternal death is meant. BGeyschlag in his edition of Huther denies this, and 
makes the word mean spiritual death. The reason of the introduction of this 
word is probably twofold: first, in order to complete the development of the 
idea of the bad side of πειρασμὸς: and, secondly, in order to present the contrast 


708 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


between the result on the good side (ζωῇ, ver. 12), and that on the bad side 
(θάνατος, ver. 15). —19. Vv. 16, 17, are closely connected with what precedes; 
ver. 18 forms a transition to what follows. Ver. 16 calls special attention to 
the statement of ver. 17 as showing the impossibility of an originating of temp- 
tation by God. Be not deceived or led astray in your thoughts on the matter, 
says the writer; so far is it from being true, that God ever solicits man to evil, 
that, on the other hand, every good comes from Him, and in Him there is no 
variableness. He moves unchangeably towards good. 

20. With respect to the peculiar expressions in the closing part of ver. 17, 
the following suggestions seem to be well founded: (a) There is a reference to 
the heavenly bodies (the stars, etc.) in the words used, and yet the language is 
not strictly astronomical throughout the entire sentence. This is evident from 
the fact that παραλλαγῇ is not employed as an astronomical term (παράλλαξις is 
the technical term). (b) The word ἀποσκίασμα must be understood as meaning 
a dark shadow cast by a body which has its dark side towards the observer, or 
which intervenes between him and the light. The rendering of the Authorized 
Version, shadow of turning, cannot therefore be correct. (c) The word τροπῆς 
does not appear to be used in a special technical sense except of the points or 
times at which there is an apparent turning of the course, as in the case of the 
sun at the solstices. It must therefore, as it would seem, refer to such a turn 
or revolution of the body as would cause a shadow to be cast. (d) In calling 
God the Father of lights, the writer apparently intends to compare Him with 
the heavenly bodies, and represent Him as not only the author and maker of 
them, but also as a greater light belonging, in the figurative representation, in 
the same class. — We may believe, therefore, that he means to say that God 
is a light or illuminating body which never, by reason of revolution or turning, 
casts a dark shadow, but which sheds forth unchanging brightness. All good 
in the spiritual sphere is in the region of light. Evil is darkness. The great, 
unchanging, ever-undimmed light can have no dark shadow. God can never 
solicit to evil. —21. Ver. 18 is related to what precedes, as showing how God 
of His own will bestows the greatest of all good gifts, and the fundamental one 
for the human soul. As related to what follows, it prepares the way for the 
exhortations which are introduced in the succeeding verses. Of the words in 
this verse, ϑουληθεῖς has a certain special emphasis. It carries back the whole 
matter to the self-moved will of God, and thus serves to show that, as the great- 
est and most all-comprehensive good is purposed and determined by Him, it is 
certainly true that no temptation can proceed from Him. This is made still 
further evident by the fact that the spiritual begetting of Christians is with a 
view to the consummation of His great plan for the whole world. They are to 
be the first-fruits, as it were, of the new creation for which all things are wait- 
ing. —It is doubtful whether we are to regard ἡμᾶς, as some, including Bey- 
schlag in his edition of Huther, do, as meaning the Christians of that day who 
were the beginnings of the Church. More probably it may refer to Christians 
in general, or to the readers as representatives of Christians generally. Proba- 
bly κτισμάτων includes all the creatures of God, and the thought is of the final 
and universal blessedness, after the subjugation of all enemies, even including 
death, the last of all. The bringing of Christians, or of the Christians of that 
time, into the life of faith and holiness, is the beginning of the result which 
will be realized in its fulness at the end. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 709 


11. 
Vv. 19-27. 


1. The exhortation of ver. 19 follows as a consequence from the statement 
of ver. 18. This relation is expressed in the most simple way, if the reading 
ὧστε of the T. R. is adopted; and this fact, as well as the peculiar variations 
in the different authorities (eote, ectw, core), may be regarded as in some degree 
favoring that reading. ‘The external evidence, however, is so strongly in favor 
of ἔστε, that it seems almost necessary to accept it as the original text. The 
connection of the verses, with this reading, is through this verb as forming an 
independent and intermediate clause, which probably refers to ver. 18, and 
prepares the way for ver. 19). This verb, if thus understood, is an indicative, 
and means you know, or are well aware of this; that is, that God, of His own 
will, ete. Beyschlag rejects Huther’s view of the connection, and joins the 
words in thought with what precedes. —2. As God gives us the new life by 
means of the word of truth, it becomes every one to be swift to hear (ver. 19b- 
21), and to hear obediently, turning what one hears into action (ver. 22ff.). 
This is the substance of the main thought as developed in what follows. Along 
with this, however, it would seem that the writer must have had in mind some 
special tendency on the part of the readers whom he was addressing to assume 
the position of teachers and to contend against others. In this way only is it 
easy to account for the added words, slow to speak, slow to wrath. This Epistle 
seems to be characterized, in some measure, by the insertion or addition of such 
more special points, while, at the same time, the main thought moves on in a 
continuous line of development. —3. Ver. 20 gives the reason for the last words 
of ver. 19: slow to wrath. Wrath does not work or produce the righteousness 
of God. Righteousness is to be understood here, not in the peculiar sense which 
belongs to the Pauline Epistles, but in the ordinary sense, — conformity to what 
ought to be, orto be done. The genitive Θεοῦ sets forth the righteousness as 
that which is demanded or approved by God, and is perhaps to be most simply 
explained as a possessive genitive carrying with it this idea.’ This righteousness 
is that which appertains to the new life to which God brings us, and hence 
whatever does not work to the end of producing it is to be avoided. —4. διό 
(ver. 21) points back to ver. 20, but the exhortation which is introduced by it 
goes out beyond the matter of avoiding ὀργῇ, to the laying aside of all κακία, 
Not improbably, we should, with Huther, Alford, and some others, connect 
purapiav with the genitive κακίας: so R. V., all filthiness and overflowing of 
wickedness, as opposed to A. V., all filthiness, and superfluity of, etc. If so, the 
word ῥυπ. is used as indicating the polluting character of sin, its defilement, 
while περισσεῖαν designates its abundance. We should lay aside that evil or 
wickedness which is so abundant within us and so defiling in its influence. 
Alford says, ‘‘ It is very possible that the agricultural similitude in ἔμφυτος may 
have influenced the choice of both these words, put. and περισσ. The ground 
must be ridded of all that pollutes and chokes it, before the seed can sink in 
and come to maturity; it must be cleaned and cleared.’’ —5. The connection 
of ver. 21 with the immediately preceding verses may indicate that πραύτητι is 
here used in the sense of gentleness, rather than meekness, in contrast to ὀργῆν 
(ver. 19). This is the view of most of the recent commentators. It is not 
necessary, indeed, to take the word in this sense; but if, as is not 1mprobably 
the case, the expression bridleth not his tongue, in ver. 26, is to be explained in 


710 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


connection with opy7, the argument in favor of this interpretation is a strong 
one. —6, The adjective ἔμφυτον is used, probably, because the establishing of 
the word in the soul is that by which the new life is made to begin and grow. 
This implanted word is able to save the soul. 

7. Ver. 22 presses the necessity of so receiving the word as to carry it out 
into conduct and life. The doing of the word here spoken of has reference, 
partly at least or prominently, to that doing of Christian duty which belongs to 
the relation of the man to others. This seems to be indicated by the ὀργῆ and 
πραύτης, by the expressions bridleth not his tongue and visit the fatherless, and 
by what is set forth in the following parts of the Epistle. The subjective, inte- 
rior, hearty reception of the word (denoted by δέξασθε) involves the addition of 
doing to hearing. The man who satisfies himself with the latter only deludes 
himself, as by a false reckoning or reasoning (παραλογίζεσθαι): see this verb as 
used in Col. ii. 4, where the word πιθανολογίᾳ is added. —8. The contrast in 
vv. 23-25 seems not to be between two mirrors, or two men looking into two 
different mirrors, but between the chance or careless looking to see one’s face 
in a mirror, and the close examination of a law ora moral system to know its 
teachings and to compare one’s character and actions with what it describes or 
demands. The man who does the former has no earnestness in his action. 
The impression is a passing one, and what he sees takes no hold upon the inner 
life. But he who does the latter must be affected by what he sees, arid must 
put in practice what is discovered by his careful and continuous study. The 
word παρακύψας of ver. 25 is a strong one, denoting a bending-down to look into, 
an intent, earnest looking; and to this is added the strong word παραμείνας, 
which denotes a continuous, persistent action in this looking. Such looking 
must affect conduct, and must lead to blessing. —9. The expression, the perfect 
law, refers to the gospel as giving the rule and description of the true life. The 
adjective τέλειον seems to be used as connected with the fact that this rule is 
complete for the life which reaches perfection. ‘The law is called the law of 
freedom, probably because the perfect life, in its relation to law and duty, must 
be a life of freely-given obedience, —a service of love. Paul and James draw 
near to each other at this point, though they may seem, in some views of their 
thinking, to approach the central truth from opposite sides. —10. Vv. 26, 27, 
carry on the general thought of the preceding verses, — religion as related to the 
doing of the work set forth in the perfect law of liberty, —and suggest promi- 
nently (in ver. 26) the idea first brought forward in the words slow to speak, 
ver. 19. — Of the words in these two verses, δοκεῖ has the sense of thinks or 
fancies (see 1 Cor. iii. 18, Gal. vi. 3, etc., in which passages the idea of deceiv- 
ing one’s self is also expressed, as it is here); θρησκός and θρησκεία are words 
designating religion as connected originally with the fear of God, if the com- 
monly assumed derivation from τρέω is accepted; the latter word seems to be 
connected with external manifestations of religion, worship, etc., — possibly the 
words are selected here because the writer has in mind the religious life as an 
active and outgoing life: visiting the fatherless, etc.; παρὰ Θεῷ, in the judgment 
of God, as God looks upon it; the reference to visiting the fatherless and widows 
in their affliction —the calamities which befall them —is by way of illustration, 
giving one of the many acts which manifest and are the forth-putting of the 
religious life; the keeping one’s self unspotted from the world, on the other 
hand, goes out beyond the sphere of these external acts, and covers the whole 
inward and outward living. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 711 


IV. 
CHAPTER II. 
Vv. 1-13. 


1, The writer passes at this point to a more particular exhortation in the 
line of Christian duty, —the first in a series of exhortations which occupy 
the larger part of the Epistle. The exhortations bear upon failings or sins by 
’ which the readers were especially characterized, and are to the end of avoiding 
them and practising the opposite virtues. The writer opens this new passage 
with the words ἀδελφοὶ μου. The frequency with which these words of address 
are used in this letter is very noticeable, and shows the hortatory character of 
it. There is no prominence given to the discussion of truths for their own sake. 
Such discussion, if occurring at all, is only incidental to the pressing of some 
duty or to the appeal to the reader to conform in one point or another to the per- 
fect law. —2. The word προσωπολημψιαις is placed in an emphatic position. This 
may possibly be accounted for by a connection in thought with the ministering 
or refusal to minister to the afflicted and weak, i. 27. But not improbably there 
is a marked turn in the thought here to a new point of duty, and the emphasis 
on the word is only for the sake of calling special attention to this point. — 
3. ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν --- Probably the writer has in mind the thought of the latter 
part of the chapter, where he sets forth the deadness of faith without works. 
To his. mind, the Christian faith moved, in a peculiar sense and measure, in the 
sphere of works, and the man who indulged in sin or violated obligations and 
duties, held the faith in —that is, in the midst of, or as if involved in or with — 
the sin in question. —4. The genitive τοὺ κυρίου is probably objective: faith in; 
but possibly it is a possessive genitive, the faith being regarded as belonging to 
the Lord, in that He taught it as the essential thing in His teaching. The geni- 
tive τῆς δόξης, on the other hand, is, on the whole, satisfactorily and most simply 
explained as a characteristic genitive following τοῦ κυρίου. Though a peculiar 
and unusual construction, involving difficulties, this is the least difficult of all 
the constructions proposed. The phrase as thus explained is not a formal dox- 
ology, and perhaps it does not necessarily involve as much as such doxologies 
do. But it certainly approaches them in force, and may be regarded as sugges- 
tive with reference to the thought of the immediate disciples and brethren of 
the Lord respecting the fitness of the ascription of praise and worship to Him. 

5. The double supposition of vv. 2, 3, is evidently intended to be understood 
as realized in both its parts. It is put in the form of a mere supposition, and is 
doubtless only one instance illustrative of the matter of respecting persons, which 
is under consideration. The passage itself, however, and other allusions to the 
relations to the rich in later verses or chapters, make it probable that the illus- 
trative example is brought forward because it was well known in the experience 
of the readers. —6, As to the question whether the rich man.of ver. 2 is to be 
regarded as a Christian or not, the suggestions of Huther appear to be decisive, 
as showing that he is not a Christian. The probability indicated in connection 
with i. 10, 11, is so greatly strengthened by this verse and by what follows, that the 
correctness of this view must be admitted. —7. The past tenses in ver. 4 are 
used, we may believe, because the writer thinks of such cases as actually having 
occurred, and therefore likely to occur. For this reason he puts the supposition 
in the form, If there shall have come... did you not, etc. The verb διακρίθητε 
is rendered in A. V., Are ye not partial (in yourselves, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς); in Ἡ, V. text, 


712 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


Are ye not divided; in R. V. marg., Do ye not make distinctions (text, in your 
own mind ; marg., among yourselves). The question as to the meaning of this 
verb is somewhat difficult of determination. The use of the verb in i. 6, and 
the more common usage of the N. T. in cases where the middle and aorist 
passive occur, favor the meaning doubt ; and if this is the meaning, the explana- 
tion given by Huther in his note is probably the correct one. It must be admitted, 
however, as we think, that this idea of doubting, as equivalent to ‘‘a contradic- 
tion of their faith, according to which external glory and riches are nothing,” is 
not quite parallel with the doubting of i. 6, and that a more distinct and direct 
expression of such contradiction, had this been the writer’s idea, would have 
been more natural and simple. On the other hand, if it is allowable to adopt 
the signification given to the verb in R. V. marg., make distinctions, the expres- 
sion becomes very simple, and the sentence falls naturally into harmony with 
itself and with the general thought of the passage. The interpretation of év 
ἑαυτοὶς will follow that of διακριθητε: if the verb has the former of the two mean- 
ings alluded to, the preposition is to be taken in the sense of in; if the verb has 
the latter signification, the preposition means among. Grimm and the recent 
commentators generally agree substantially with Huther respecting the verb. — 
8. There can be little doubt that the genitive διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν is a descriptive 
or characteristic genitive, and that the substance of meaning is, as given in 
R. V., judges with evil thoughts, or, as Grimm gives it, judges who follow per- 
verse opinions, reprehensible principles. The Christian who made such distinc- 
tions and discriminations, favoring the rich as against the poor, was,-in his 
judgments and principles which were the result of his reflection (διαλογισμοί), 
in opposition to the true Christian idea. This is proved by the following verse 
(ver.5). The argument here is similar to that which Paul urges in 1 Cor. i. 26 ff. 
Their own experience as to the Divine calling would plainly show the impropriety 
of their conduct in this matter. The similarity of this passage to the one in 
1 Cor., as well as the general underlying thought of the passage itself, favors the 
view that in faith denotes the sphere in which the persons spoken of were rich, 
— poor in the view of the world and according to the world’s standard of judg- 
ment, but rich in the Christian sphere and according to the standard of the 
kingdom of God.—9. The writer now sets forth the behavior of the rich to- 
wards the Christians as a second reason why the latter should not honor them 
in the way indicated. The rich oppress and persecute them, and blaspheme the 
name of Christ which is called upon them at the beginning of their Christian 
life. The conduct here spoken of is such as could hardly be descriptive of rich 
persons connected with the Church; and these verses (5-7) seem, therefore, 
clearly to show, by the contrasts and statements which they contain, that the 
unchristian rich are the persons referred to throughout the entire passage. The 
evidence for this view thus becomes stronger as the passage moves forward, and 
the reference to the same class of persons in the later part of the Epistle accords 
with and confirms what is here said. —10. The view of Huther, that in vv. 8, 9, 
the writer ‘‘ meets the attempt which his readers might perhaps make to justify 
their conduct toward the rich by the law of love’’ seems improbable. The 
readers would hardly attempt to justify conduct which made such a distinction 
between men, by appealing to the law of love, which required them to love every 
one as themselves, —a love which evidently must apply to the poor equally with 
the rich, It seems more probable that the writer is, as Alford says, guarding 
his own argument from misconstruction. The rich should be treated, indeed, 
according to the principles of the law of love; but this is a widely different thing 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 713 


from such respecting of persons as that which is referred to, The latter isa 
sin, —a violation of the law of love. 

11. The word μέντοι, to which Huther assigns the meaning assuredly or cer- 
tainly, has, not improbably, a mild adversative sense. It should probably be 
rendered however, rather than as in R. V. howbeit. It suggests the contrast 
connected with the possible misconstruction alluded to. —12. Being convicted 
by the law as transgressors — The law here spoken of is the whole Mosaic law 
as viewed on the side of duties towards our fellow-men, —that portion of the 
Mosaic law which, as Paul says in Rom. xiii. 10, Gal. v. 14, is fulfilled and 
summed up in the command, ‘‘ Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’’? This 
command gathers up into itself every thing in the treatment of others which is 
demanded by its spirit, and consequently it is transgressed by any act, or manner 
of acting, which is contrary to the love required. The proof which follows in 
vy. 10, 11, is illustrative, showing that such a single violation is a transgression 
of the whole Jaw. —13. The view of Huther with respect to οὕτως of ver. 12 — 
that it refers backward, rather than simply to the following ὡς — is to be regarded 
as correct. The case seems to be parallel to 1 Cor. ix. 24. In closing the para- 
graph, the writer gives a general exhortation which covers and includes the 
particular matter discussed in the preceding verses, and, at the same time, 
reaches out to the entire circle of action and speech in the Christian life. The 
law of liberty here spoken of is undoubtedly the same with that mentioned in 
i, 25, and this law is characterized by the same descriptive word for the same 
reason as in the former case. The gospel rule is one which is fulfilled by a 
freely-given obedience. This law, which can be truly fulfilled only in this way, 
—the law of love obeyed in the free and hearty spirit of love, —is the one by 
which the Christian is to be judged; and hence he should be careful that in every 
thing he yields obedience to it. And he should do this because (ver. 13) the 
merciful judgment, which is the ground of hope as connected with the Christian 
system, gives way to the opposite in the case of one who contradicts the Chris- 
tian spirit by violating the law of love. In the case of one who, on the other 
hand, is governed by that law, mercy which forgives and justifies prevails over 
judgment, and secures the man the offered blessing. 


Σ 
Vv. 14-26. 


1. The turn in the thought at this point seems to be connected with the 
general underlying idea of the Epistle, that true religion is that only which 
shows itself in acts and life, and, more immediately and particularly, with the 
suggestion of the preceding verses which refer to judgment. The justifying 
judgment, which comes through mercy, is not to be expected on the ground of a 
mere dead faith. The faith which is the animating principle of the Christian 
life, and which saves the soul, is one which works in the line of obedience to 
the law of love. —It would seem evident, that in connection with the conduct 
alluded to in the preceding verses, and at the close of chap. i., there must have 
been a doctrine or claim on the part of many of the readers whom the writer 
addresses, that faith apart from works was all-sufficient. The writer combats 
this doctrine, first, by presenting an illustrative example from the ordinary 
course of life—a case of need which might present itself for relief; and 
secondly, by pointing to the history of Abraham — the great historic case of 
Abraham.—2, That the faith which is here spoken of is a mere belief, a faith 


714 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


which has in it no love element, no working power, and thus a faith which is 
different from that which Paul has in mind in his Epistles (e.g., Gal. v. 6), 
seems evident from all the indications of the passage. The difference between 
Paul and James is not that the latter affirms the faith of the former to be dead, 
while the former affirms it to be the living and life-giving principle of the true 
life. Paul holds that faith has a working, as well as a believing, element. In 
other words, the Pauline faith is trust; it is a uniting force as between the 
soul of man and God. The Pauline faith proved its existence by works; it 
was not a mere belief of a proposition, such as the proposition or truth, that 
God is one. The two writers thus regard the living faith and the dead faith 
in the same way: the question of life and death here, as everywhere, being 
the question of the presence or absence of the working element. But James, 
by reason of the exigencies of his discussion, is speaking of a dead faith, while 
Paul has always occasion to refer to living faith. 

3. The question as to justification is more difficult. So far as the necessity 


of a living faith to justification is concerned, the two writers would seem to 


agree that it is necessary. But does James teach a doctrine inconsistent with 
Paul’s position, that justification is through faith alone? Is the statement 
respecting Abraham in this passage inconsistent with what is implied or 
declared in Romans, chap. iv. ? On this point the following suggestions may be 
offered: (a) Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, was contending 
against Judaizing partisans, who insisted that all, even the Gentile converts, 
should conform to the whole Mosaic system, and that they could not be justified 
without this. He maintained the sufficiency of faith for justification, and 
declared that there was no justification by works, because there was no such 
thing in human experience as a perfect and complete fulfilment of the law. 
The Christian system, according to him, was a system of free forgiveness on 
the ground of faith. Faith was the first movement of the soul, in turning from 
enmity to God, towards a friendly relation to Him. This first movement of the 
soul involved an element of love, which, as the life and activity of the soul 
went forward, would result in good works, i.e., in conformity of the whole life 
to the will of God. The act of forgiveness and justification on God’s part, 
however, was, to his view, coincident with the act of faith; and the man, being 
justified when he believed, had only to go forward thereafter under the impulse 
of the love-element connected with his faith. —(b) James, on the other hand, 
was contending in this Epistle against persons who held that faith without the 
love-element was all that was necessary. These persons held that a mere belief 
which had no effect upon conduct, a faith which could give no evidence of its 
existence as a transforming and elevating power in the life, was sufficient to 
secure justification. —(c) With reference to the case of Abraham as mentioned 
by James, and the use which he makes of it, it will be noticed that the sacrifice 
of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2) was later in point of time than the statements that faith 
was accounted to him for righteousness (Gen. xv. 6), and that he was called the 
friend of God (probably founded upon Gen. xviii. 17); also, that the act of sacrifice 
is spoken of as completing or perfecting the faith, and the words of Gen. xv. 6 
are said to have been thereby fulfilled; also, that the conclusion drawn in the 
twenty-fourth verse must be interpreted in consistency with the declaration of 
the O. T., which places the justification before the act of sacrifice, and may 
naturally be interpreted (not to say, must be interpreted) in such a way as to 
understand and not by faith only, as meaning not by such faith as the writer 
of the Epistle has in mind in his discussion. In view of these considerations, 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Tho 


it would seem that James must have recognized the fact of the justification of 
Abraham, at a time which preceded not only the sacrifice of Isaac, but even the 
birth of this heir of the promises; and that when he speaks of his justification 
by works in connection with the sacrifice, he cannot mean to deny that he was 
justified when he first exercised faith. —(d) The true position of James, there- 
fore, seems to be this: that, when the test time for the man’s faith comes, — 
the test which determines whether the faith is a living or a dead one, — justi- 
fication depends on whether the faith displays its living force by an act of 
obedience and love. In other words, justification is on the ground of a faith 
which is a living, loving, active principle. —It is indeed true, as Huther says, 
quoting from Wieseler, that it is one thing to say, to be justified by faith 
which is proved by works, and another thing, to be justified by works in which 
faith is proved. But it must be borne in mind, that we are not dealing here 
with abstract theological propositions. The writer of this Epistle is guided 
in his use of language by the circumstances of the case, the character and 
position of the persons against whom he is contending, etc. What he says is 
to be judged accordingly; and, when viewed from this standpoint, the difference 
between the two statements is not of that marked and distinct character which 
may be observed when they are considered as theological propositions, —(e) The 
correctness of the view which is in the line of these suggestions is confirmed 
by all the indications of the passage. The fact that faith without works is 
illustrated by the empty saying to a destitute brother, Go in peace, without 
doing any thing for his relief; the impossibility, which is clearly hinted at, of 
showing or proving the existence of real faith, except by such works as would 
be naturally prompted by it; the description of faith apart from works, as 
similar to that which the demons have; the statement that faith apart from 
works is barren; the points already set forth in connection with the case of 
Abraham; the comparison between faith apart from works, and the body 
without the animating and vivifying power of the spirit, —all these things 
exhibit the writer’s idea of the faith which he regards 85.850 insufficient and 
worthless, and show what he means when he says that a man is justified by 
works, and not only by faith. 

4. With respect to individual words and phrases, the following suggestions 
may be offered: (a) The abrupt turn in the question, τὶ τὸ ὄφελος (ver. 14), is 
calculated to arrest the attention of the reader, and bring him at once to the 
very centre of the subject. —(b) R. V. renders ἡ πίστις of ver. 14b, that faith. 
Huther denies this force of the demonstrative pronoun to the article in this 
place. It would seem doubtful, to say the least, whether the demonstrative 
force can be insisted upon. —(c) The word σῶσαι refers, no doubt, to future 
salvation, and this word, accordingly, suggests that the writer is referring 
throughout the passage to that justification which is connected with the 
securing of salvation for a man who has the opportunity to put his faith in 
exercise; that is, that he is not limiting his thought to the first moment of 
forgiveness, when the man is set right before the judgment of God with 
reference to his past sins. —(d) Huther is hardly justified in insisting on our 
regarding yopragecbe and θερμαΐνεσθε as in the middle voice, on the ground that 
only thus does the contrast appear pointed and definite. The point seems to be 
simply, that there is an empty expression of good wishes, but no corresponding 
action, and not that the destitute brother might warm or satisfy himself. — 
(e) The remark of Huther in his note on ver. 17 is worthy of special notice: 
“From the fact that James calls faith dead if it has not works, it is evident 


110 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


that by these works is not meant something which must be added to faith, but 
something which grows out of faith; the ἔργα here treated of are works of 
faith, in which are the germs of faith.’”? Paul and James alike have in mind a 
working faith, a faith which works through love, which is alive with a living 
energy. —(/f) The objections which Huther urges against making the person 
referred to in the expression, ἀλλ᾽ épei τις, “a vir sapiens et intelligens, to whom 
James assigns the part of carrying on the argument in his stead against his 
opponent,”’ are worthy of consideration, but they do not appear to be decisive. 
His own explanation must be regarded as artificial and improbable. Beyschlag, 
in his edition of Huther, rejects Huther’s explanation. The use of ἀλλά even in 
Paul’s writings is such that a somewhat wide range must be given to its mean- 
ing and force in some cases. It seems sometimes to be nearly equivalent to our 
word nay, as used in sentences of this sort; and to express a contrast, not, 
indeed, to the form of words immediately preceding, but to an underlying idea 
or a suggested thought. If it can be understood in this way here, the thought 
of the sentences moves forward simply and easily. So far from faith, apart 
from works, having any living force, a man may say, ‘‘Show me,” ete. The 
remark of Huther, that it cannot be perceived why James should express his 
own opinion in the person of another, who is entirely indefinite, can hardly be 
regarded as of serious importance; for the statement that some one, or any one, 
may urge what is thus said has a certain force which the same thing presented 
as from the writer himself might not have. — The objections to the view which 
makes the τίς a person who opposes the position taken by James, seem to be 
insuperable. — (vy) Ver. 19 is apparently connected with what precedes, and ver. 
20 opens the new stage in the argument, founded upon the case of Abraham, 
ete. The article of faith which is fundamental is taken as an example, — the 
belief that God is one, —and it is shown, that, without any thing growing out 
of it in works and life, it amounts to nothing more than even the demons have. 
The verb which is added with regard to the demons (¢piccovow) expresses 
apparently the opposite idea to σῶσαι of ver. 14, and the thought moves, in 
connection with σῶσαι and its opposite, to the ἐδικαιώθη of ver. 21.—(h) The 
justification of Abraham here spoken of is, as we may say, connected with that 
of which Paul speaks in Romans, chap. iv., and Galatians, chap. iii., through 
the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 17 f.), where the writer of that 
Epistle says, ‘‘ By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac,” ete. The 
offering of Isaac was a fruit of faith, a work growing out of it; and as viewed 
from the side of faith with, or without, works, Abraham was justified by works, 
The justification would not have been realized, had there been no working 
energy in the faith. This working energy manifested itself in action, when 
the demand came for the sacrifice. 

(i) The statement of ver. 22 accords with and confirms this view of the mat- 
ter. Faith co-operated with Abraham’s works, in the sense that it was the 
inspiring principle which caused them to be done; and, on the other hand, it 
was itself completed by them in the sense that, if there had been no outworking 
force showing itself when the opportunity and summons came, the faith would 
have been, and would have proved itself to be, an imperfect and even a dead 
thing. It was in this way, and in this sense, that the Scripture passage in Gen. 
xv. 6 found its real and perfect fulfilment. In this light of the passage, and 
with this explanation, there is no real contradiction between Paul and James, 
This very passage of Genesis on which Paul founds his doctrine of justification 
by faith was actually fulfilled in the sense that the faith was made complete, 


Ln 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. - ‘ig {| 


and the justification was assured and made manifest, when the faith had put 
forth its living energy in act. The word ἐτελειώθη refers to the perfecting of faith 
in the realization of its force in action; the verb ἐπληρώθη refers, in a similar 
way, to the fulfilment of the Scriptural words in the realization and sealing, as it 
were, of the justification. — (7) The twenty-sixth verse repeats in substance the 
statement of ver. 20, or verbatim if we read νεκρά instead of apy7 in that verse; 
but it adds the comparison of the body and spirit. The character of the faith 
of which the writer is speaking is most clearly indicated by these two verses. 
The faith which is entirely apart from works is like the body without the spirit; 
it is ἀργῇ, without working energy, because it is νεκρά, having in it no animating 
and inspiring force. —(k) All things in the passage thus combine to show the 
truth of what Huther says in his closing remarks upon the chapter, —namely, 
that James did not design to make an attack upon Paul’s doctrine. It does not, 
however, seem quite as clear that he may not have referred to some misappre- 
hending or misappropriation of it, or that the Epistle belongs to the earlier 
apostolic times. This latter view is, nevertheless, not improbable. 


VI. 
CHAPTER III. 
Vv. 1-12. 


1. It is evident that, as Huther says, the writer passes at the beginning of 
this chapter to a new subject. Apparently the empty faith which characterized 
those whom the preceding chapter had referred to, had the influence which it 
often has: as it had no living force and energy leading to the appropriate 
works of the Christian life, it exerted its force, if such it might be called, in the 
way of assuming to teach others. Talking and teaching took the place of work- 
ing. The exhortation which he gives, therefore, follows appropriately after the 
passage relating to living and dead faith. —2. The verb γίνεσθε seems to be used 
here because the writer would dissuade them from entering upon the course indi- 
cated. The word πολλοί is explained correctly by Beyschlag in his edition of 
Huther, Be not in great numbers teachers; that is, do not be seeking the office 
and work of teachers, as if this were the thing to be aimed at by the great mass 
of Christians. The connection of thought in the following verses seems to be 
this: that as we all offend in many points, and the higher the position volun- 
tarily assumed the greater the condemnation, it is unbecoming to thrust one’s 
self forward in the way mentioned. Ver. 3 then adds the peculiar danger of 
offence as connected with the tongue, — an idea evidently suggested by the desire 
of the readers to become teachers, but yet it goes beyond this particular subject 
to the general matter of the sins of the tongue. —3. The suggestion that the 
man who controls his tongue is able also to control his whole body, is hardly to 
be understood in its most direct and full meaning; but as conveying the idea 
that the control of the tongue is so difficult, that one who succeeds in gaining 
this will show power enough to make him equal to the emergency of meeting 
the temptations to sin which come in connection with any other part of the 
man. The word body seems to be used because tongue, one of the members of 
the body, has been used. This is a sufficient account of its introduction, but it 
is possible that the thought of the members of the body as the avenues through 
which temptations come into the soul, and appetites and desires go out, may have 
been in the author’s mind. —4. The comparison of ver. 5 has, indeed, a certain 
relation to the illustration of ver. 3, as well as that of ver. 4, but its immediate 


118 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


reference is evidently to the latter. The words μεγάλα αὐχεὶ (or, if that be the 
true reading, ueyadavyei) are regarded by Grimm as denoting a kind of haughty 
language which stirs up strife. This would seem to be indicated by the passage 
which follows, and may be regarded as the correct view, rather than the view 
which would hold that αὐχεῖ is simply substituted for ποιεὶ because the tongue is 
the member spoken of. —5. Ver. 5b f. unfolds what is suggested by μεγάλα abyei. 
The sense of the first ἡλίκον is how small; for, even if this is not the direct 
signification of the word as here used, the thought of the whole passage would 
lead us to interpret the phrase, how great a fire kindles how great a wood, by 
measuring the greatness in the former case by contrast with that in the latter. 
If it is understood otherwise, the sentence is out of harmony with: the tongue 
is a little member, ete. The word vAnv probably means forest here, as in R. V. 
marg., rather than wood, as in R. V. text. 

6. As between the construction of ver. 6 given in R. V. text, And the tongue 
is a fire; the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which, etc., 
and that given in R. V. marg., And the tongue is a fire, that world of iniquity ;- 
the tongue is among our members that which, etc., the decision is probably to be 
made in favor of the former, because in this way the thought of the clauses 
best divides itself. That the tongue is a fire, is a statement which naturally 
follows upon ver. 5); and as thus following, it has in itself a marked emphasis 
and solemnity which arrest attention. Then the thought moves on with a cor- 
responding solemnity in a sentence which is explanatory of this brief affirmation, 
and gives a justification for it: The world of iniquity, the tongue is, ete. Huther 
takes the other view on grounds which seem hardly sufficient. He objects to the 
construction as difficult, and as isolating too much the first thought, and also 
because there is no correct meaning unless the words 7 yA. πῦρ are closely con- 
nected with what follows. There is no difficulty, if the close union with 5h is 
noticed, and this close union accounts for what Huther regards as the isolating 
of the first thought. The last point made by Huther falls away with the other 
two. Beyschlag objects to Huther’s explanation, and favors the other. — 
7. The word κόσμος, whichever view of the sentence is taken, is undoubtedly used 
in the sense of the sum or totality of unrighteousness, The tongue is thus con- 
ceived of because, in the line of the writer’s present thought, it appears as if 
the source of all evils. The idea of sum is designedly expressed with greatest 
emphasis by the use of this particular word κόσμος, the world. This sum of evil 
is in the tongue, making it a consuming fire on every side for the man himself 
and for others. —8. καθίσταται --- On this verb see Additional Notes in the 
Amer. edition of Meyer’s Commentary on Romans, v. 19. The tongue is set 
(or sets itself) in the midst of (among) the members as that which, etc. The 
sense of καθίσταται as here used is most clearly seen in connection with iv. 4 and 
2 Pet. i. 8. It is substantially equivalent to ἐστί (see iv. 4, where the two verbs 
are used in parallel sentences); but possibly has the additional idea of: caused 
to appear as — shown to be — what it really is. The ‘‘is’’ notion, is, however, 
the most prominent one, so far as the truth or fact declared .3 concerned. © 

9. The tongue is spoken of as set on fire by Gehenna, apparently because of 
the violence of expression given forth by it, and the impulse given thereby to 
various sorts of sin which the writer now has in mind, as he is speaking espe- 
cially of the tongue. In another connection, and with a more full survey of 
sin in all its lines and sources, he might, no doubt, have limited his expressions 
more exactly. — The words φλογίζουσα τὴν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως have a certain paral- 
lelism with the preceding participial clause, and so far there is a measure of 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 719 


probability that tpoy. yevéo. refers to the course of the individual life, —the 
wheel of birth or human origin. This probability, however, can hardly be con- 
sidered as sufficient in itself to determine the question. Nevertheless, it appears 
to the writer of this note, that, if this view of the matter is adopted, the harmony 
of the clauses with each other, and the unity of the thought as presented in 
the figures, is most successfully realized. The only other view worthy of serious 
consideration is that of R. V. text: the wheel of nature, the orb of creation (Alf., 
ete.), or that mentioned in Grimm’s Ν. T. Lex.: the wheel of life or existence 
(like the English word ‘‘machinery’’). —10. The γάρ of ver. 7 introduces that 
verse and the following as a justification of the statements which precede, and 
especially as a ground for the strong expression in the last participial clause of 
ver. 6. The untamable character of the tongue, its restless evil character, full 
of deadly poison, is the evidence that it is set on fire by Gehenna, that it is 
moved and impelled in its evil by the author of evil. The words a restless evil, 
full, etc., are to be explained with Winer and Huther as independent, and a 
sort of exclamation, rather than as a sentence introduced by it is. —11. The 
true explanation of ver. 9 ff. is connected with the fact that these evils and sins 
which arise from the tongue are those which the writer has observed among the 
Christian readers whom he is addressing. They have fallen into sins in this 
regard which are illustrative of the power of evil connected with the tongue; 
and he warns them of the deadly character of such evil in its possible develop- 
ment, in order that he may arrest the progress of what may become unconquer- 
able, if not restrained. Possibly this whole passage may be related to the closing 
part of the preceding chapter in the way which seems to be suggested by Neander, 
who says, ‘‘ The show of piety James opposes in all its forms. Such is that 
pious cant, in which, along with praise to God in words, are mingled a hateful 
censoriousness and bitter denunciation of men, in whom God’s image is to be 
honored. James exposes the inherent inconsistency of such conduct, which to 
his view is mere hypocrisy.”? And he adds, ‘‘Thus does James express the 
ground-thought of this whole Epistle (in these verses, 9-12), namely, that all 
turns on the inward temper from which the whole life takes its direction.’’ 
The view of some writers, that ver. 9 is an exemplification of the restlessness or 
unsteadfastness of the tongue, is much less probable than that which is thus 
given, and which takes hold upon the underlying thought of the whole context. 
—12. The word χρῇ here seems to refer to that necessity which is connected 
with the fitness of things, and so to be equivalent to our word ought in such 
sentences. This contrariety to fitness is set forth by the illustrations which 
follow and which are taken from things familiar to all in nature. 


VII. 
Vv. 13-18. 


1. There is apparently a certain connection between this passage and the 
exhortation of ver. 1, as related to the verses which follow. The claim of 
wisdom and knowledge was naturally-united with the disposition to become 
teachers; and that contentiousness, etc., which accompanied this claim, mani- 
fested itself, no doubt, in the outspeaking of boasting, and of bitter opposition, 
by which the destructive power of the tongue was displayed. There is also, as 
we may not improbably be justified in holding, a certain connection with the 
closing part of chap. ii., such as is indicated in the words of Neander, ‘‘ As 
James has contended against a false faith, unaccompanied by works, so does 


720 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


he, in like manner, against that knowledge and wisdom in divine things, which 
does not make itself known by a living activity in a corresponding course of 
life.’”’ In this latter view of the passage, it becomes a third presentation of the 
necessity of such correspondence to the true Christian life, faith, speech, wis- 
dom, all being manifested by the appropriate outworking of the inner principle. 
—2. The two adjectives σοφός and ἐπιστήμων are here used, apparently, as in 
substance equivalent to each other, the latter being added only as emphasizing 
the idea of the former. This is indicated by the fact that, in the development 
of the thought in the following verses, σοφία alone appears. —3. The substitution 
of the word works instead of wisdom, in the second part of ver. 13, is not 
improbably to be accounted for in connection with the reference in the passage 
to oppositions and peace as the results of the false and true wisdom. The 
readers who were disposed to claim wisdom should show out of—that is, by, 
because springing out of —a good manner of life, the corresponding results, in 
the particular line here suggested, the opposite of bitter envying and strife; 
and they should do this in the sphere of the working of that meekness which 
appertains to wisdom in its truest and genuine sense. The word zpavryc, as 
here used, means meekness ; but there may be, perhaps, in connection with the 
context, a suggestion, in a subordinate way, of the other idea of the word, 
namely, gentleness. —4. The arrangement of the thought in ver. 14 is the 
reverse of that in ver. 13. If you claim wisdom, show it in its appropriate 
fruits (ver. 13); if, on the other hand, you manifest what is opposite in your 
feelings and spirit and acts, do not glory in your wisdom, and lie against the 
truth (ver. 14). The opposite results, in the attitude towards one another, to 
that to which the meekness of wisdom would lead, are jealousy and faction, 
or selfish partisanship. The compound verb κατακαυχᾶσθε suggests the idea of 
glorying in wisdom over against, or to the disparaging or injury of others. 
The expression, lie not against the truth, is not in the proper sense tautological ; 
at least, the addition of the last words is not without a certain solemnity and 
emphasis. The claim of wisdom on the part of such persons was a glorying 
against others, and was a lie against the inward truth of the soul, or perhaps, 
taking the word objectively, against the truth in the objective Christian sense, 
as Wies-nger holds. 

5. The relation of κατερχομένη (ver. 15) to the sentence is shown by its 
contrast with ἐπίγειος. It is a descriptive adjective. The wisdom whose fruit 
is jealousy and bitterness is not one that comes down from above, but earthly. 
The demonstrative pronoun airy evidently points to the sort of wisdom sug- 
gested by the words of ver. 14, and the proof which is given in ver. 16 goes 
back directly to the language of the fourteenth verse. The adjective ἐπίγειος is 
the direct contrast to ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, while the two following adjectives are 
added as giving further characteristics which belong to the earthly wisdom. 
This adjective ἐπίγειος, according to its strict and original meanirg, describes 
the wisdom as having its whole existence, its origin and life as it were, on the 
earth. It is not connected with, and does not belong in the sphere of, that 
part of the man which has communication with heaven and the Divine Spirit. 
It is “of the νοῦς only, as distinguished from the πνεῦμα. It is ψυχικῆ, as 
contrasted with πνευματική, belonging to that part of the man, in his intelligent 
life, which is open only to the visible and sensible and earthly. It is what 
Paul calls the wisdom of this age, and to which he alludes in its contrast with 
the higher wisdom which he presents to the full-grown Christians in the 
passage dealing with this subject in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 721 


James, however, adds another descriptive word, δαιμονιώδης, demon-like, devilish, 
because he has prominently in mind, as Paul has not in the passage referred 
to, the evil spirit which is connected with this wisdom, and which manifests 
itself in jealousy and selfish factiousness. Beyschlag thinks the word does not 
mean so much as devilish, which would be διαβολικῆ. --- Θ, The making promi- 
nent of ἀκαταστασία in ver. 16 is evidently connected with the manifestation of 
this among those to whom he was writing. This word denotes an unstable 
and unsettled condition, and may mean more or less in this line of thought, 
according to the circumstances or demands of the individual case. Thus in 
1 Cor. xiv. 33, its use is suggested by a disorderly condition which might arise 
in the church meetings, from the too-abundant exercise of the gift of tongues, 
without accompanying interpretation; while in Luke xxi. 9, it refers to the 
commotions connected with tumults and wars. Here the reference is to that 
which underlies the thought of the whole chapter.—7. The wisdom from 
above is described by a succession of words, the main pointing of which is in 
the direction opposite to ἀκαταστασία, ζῆλος πικρός, ἐριθεία. It is first described as 
ἁγνή. This word, at least in its N. T. use, seems, as Trench remarks, to move 
along a somewhat different line from ἅγιος, which is a kindred word, and to 
have in it the idea of purity, rather than of separation and thus consecration 
to God. The heavenly wisdom is pure in the large and full sense, it is free from 
all that is impure, it is the source of every good thing, not every evil. This is 
its first and fundamental characteristic. Then it is εἰρηνικῆ, as Grimm renders 
the word, peaceable, pacific, loving peace; ἐπιεικῆς, gentle, having a sweet 
reasonableness; εὐπειθής, pliant or compliant, easy to be persuaded, not disposed 
to contend persistently; μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν, full of. mercy or com- 
passionate feeling and good fruits. The suggestion of compassionate feeling 
seems to be by way of contrast to the jealousy, etc., which is the fruit of the 
other kind of wisdom. ἀδιάκριτος [18 word 1s rendered by R. V. text, without 
variance, and by R. V. marg., in two ways, either without doubtfulness, or 
without partiality. The decision as to the meaning is difficult, but the choice 
seems to lie between the first and second meaning mentioned. The preceding 
words are favorable to the first view, the following word to the second. The 
first view seems on the whole to be preferable, because of the general thought 
which apparently occupies the writer’s mind. ἀνυπόκριτος, without hypocrisy; 
this final word marks the wisdom as free from all that pretence and falseness 
which characterize those who have an empty, dead faith, etc., and who have 
been already referred to. —8, δικαιοσύνης is here used in its ordinary, not in its 
peculiar Pauline sense, and the genitive is appositional. This view of the 
word, which is favored by Huther and others, accords best with the whole 
course of thought in the passage. The fruit which springs from the sowing 
in character and life is a fruit of right living, when it is sown in the sphere of 
peace, in the way and spirit of peace, and such fruit results for those who make 
peace. 
VIII. 


CHAPTER IV. 
Vv. 1-12. 


1. There is a certain abruptness in the opening of this chapter, and yet 
evidently a connection between it and that which immediately precedes. The 
idea of peace, as related to and the result of the wisdom from above, in con- 
trast with the bitterness, etc., springing from the earthly wisdom, suggests 


122 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


the abrupt and even indignant expressions which now follow. The wars and 
fightings refer, no doubt, to violent and unseemly contendings among them- 
selves; but the passage has such a vehemence of denunciatory rebuke, that we 
may believe its expressions to have a rhetorical strength which the writer did 
not measure by the literal facts. So when he uses the word ¢ovevere, and speaks 
of the readers as [adulterers and] adulteresses. The connection of sin, as it 
outwardly displays itself, with the desire and inward movement of the heart, are 
set forth as in chap. 1.—2. The word ἡδόνων seems to be used in the sense of 
desires for pleasure (see ver. 3), and is substituted for ἐπιθυμίων, because the 
writer has the idea of ver. 3 especially in mind. These desires for pleasures 
war (Alf. says, campaign, have their camp, and, as it were, forage about; and 
this is not improbably the sense of the word as here employed) in your 
members. The following three sentences present the condition into which 
these desires for pleasures bring men; the going-out of desire without gaining 
possession of what is desired; then, the whole series of evil desires and acts, 
from envy or jealousy up to murder; and then, the fighting and warring which 
characterize and make up the life of a community full of bitter jealousy and 
the factious spirit. Having thus set forth the condition, the writer gives the 
reason why they do not have the things which may give them satisfaction, 
namely, because they do not ask of God except for the purpose of expending 
upon their pleasures what they would wish to receive.—3. The reading 
μοιχαλίδες, as against μοιχοί καὶ μοιχαλίδες, is so strongly supported that it is 
probably to be accepted. If so, the feminine form is used, as we may believe, 
because of the relation of the church to God, as presented many times in the 
O. T. The members of the church are conceived of as, in a sense, sustaining 
this same relation. Beyschlag also holds that the word refers to the individual 
members of the church. The explanatory marginal note added in A. R. VY. 
gives, accordingly, the true sense, and is helpful to the common reader: ‘‘ That 
is, who break your marriage vow to God.” —4. Know ye not, ete. (ver. 4).— 
This confident inquiry which is equivalent, as in similar cases in the Pauline 
Epistles, to an emphatic affirmation of the fact, presses upon the thought of 
the readers, that, if they desire and act after this manner, they cannot expect to 
receive any thing from God. The genitives κόσμου and θεοῦ express an objective 
relation. The verb ἐβουλήθη is the word’ minded of the English version, and 
denotes the inclination and disposition as turned in a certain direction. 
καθίσταται is evidently parallel with ἔστιν in this verse, and certainly approxi- 
mates most closely to it in meaning. The centering of the life in the will, the 
disposition and inclination of the whole inner man, is indicated in this place, 
as it is in many parts of the N. T. Thisis the N. T. doctrine. The friendship 
of the world is enmity to God; whoever therefore has his mind set in the 
direction of the world is placed by that very fact in the condition of an 
enemy of God; he is constituted such by the action of his own will and 
purpose; he becomes such ipso facto, and thus is such. Beyschlag holds that 
here and in Rom. ν. 19, καθίσταται = ἐστί, as not unfrequently in classic Greek. 
—5. Or:—this 7.is like that which we find often in Paul’s writings, and intro- 
duces the following sentence, which is put in the form of a question, as the 
only supposition possible, unless the preceding one is admitted; the question 
implying that they cannot hold this supposition. The force of these verses, 
therefore, is as follows: Whoever... maketh himself an enemy of God. 
This you must admit, or you must suppose that the Scripture speaks in vain 
when it says what is in ver. 5b. But this you cannot suppose. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 723 


6. The words of ver. 5) are regarded as a question, according to the render- 
ing of R. V. text. The exact meaning and translation of this part of ver. 5 are 
uncertain, but the second marginal rendering of R. V. gives that which seems, 
not improbably, to present the true sense : That Spirit which He made to dwell 
in us yearneth for us even unto jealous envy. If this is correct, the idea of the 
sentence is in harmony with the context, and with the peculiar construction 
with 7. Since the Spirit which God makes to dwell in us longs for us even unto 
jealous envy, it must be that the man who is minded to be a friend of the world 
will be an enemy of God. — The first marginal rendering of R. V. is that which 
Huther prefers, and no serious objection can be urged against it: The spirit 
which He made to dwell in us, He yearneth for even unto jealous envy. In this 
case, the subject of the two sentences, 5b and 6a, is the same; and in this fact 
an argument may perhaps be found for this view of 5b.—7. The view which 
holds that λέγει of ver. 5 means says, not speaks, and that the πρὸς φθόνον, x.7.2., 
depends on it, is the simplest and best, —the explanation being that the writer 
gives first the substance of the idea of what the O. T. says, and then makes a 
particular citation in ver. 6b as supporting the statement of ver. 6a.—S8. But 
he gives greater grace, i.e., greater because of, and in proportion to, this jealous 
envy. Wherefore, i.e., it is on account of the fact stated, that the O. T. uses 
the language quoted. God gives grace, because of His desire and longing unto 
jealous envy, to those whom he loves; but, for the same reason, He resists the 
proud, His enemies, those who are minded to be friends of the world. These 
verses thus support and strengthen that which underlies the suggestions of 
ver. 1 ff. 

9. Ver. 7 (οὖν) draws the conclusion from the preceding context in the form 
of exhortations. In the first two of these exhortations there is, in a certain 
sense, a corresponding positive and negative, which are in the immediate line 
of the preceding thought and expressions. They should submit themselves to 
God, and thus, in the exercise of the humility just alluded to in the O. T. quo- 
tation, place themselves in accord with God’s yearning desire, and should resist 
the Devil, the prince of the world, under whose dominion they would come by 
turning towards friendship with the world. Such resistance will be successful, 
for the very reason that to those who submit to God He gives a grace propor- 
tioned to His desire for them. To the exhortation to resist the Devil, is added 
the assurance that they will be successful in their effort, —he will flee from 
them; while on the other hand, to the exhortation to submit themselves to God, 
which is now put in another form, though in substance it is the same thing, is 
joined the promise that the corresponding blessing will come: draw near to Him, 
and He will draw near to you. The positive and negative sides of the first and 
fundamental exhortation are presented in vv. 7, 8a. In ver. 8b we find an exhor- 
tation to that which is an essential accompaniment or antecedent of drawing 
near to God. ‘This is addressed to sinners and to those who have a double soul 
or mind, as it were, divided between God and the world. Apparently, the 
writer addresses the Christian readers thus because of their non-conformity to 
the duties and requirements of their Christian profession, as indicated in the 
preceding part of the Epistle. — 10. The exhortations in ver. 9 set forth what is 
necessary with reference to past conduct, as connected with the cleansing, etc., 
mentioned in ver. 8b. These, again, are expressed in the same vigorous, strong 
language which characterizes the Epistle throughout: Be wretched, and mourn 
and weep; let your laughter be turned, ete. — The word κατήφεια, not found else- 
where in the N. T., is compounded of κατά with the sense of downward, and τὰ 


134 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


gan, the eyes, — with downcast eyes; and carries with it the idea of humiliation, 
i.e., the feeling of humiliation. — The final exhortation returns to the one at the 
beginning, and expresses distinctly what is there put in the form of submission, 
—humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord; and then the promise is, in sub- 
stance, renewed: and He shall exalt you. xvpiovis to be regarded, with Huther, 
as referring to God, not Christ, because of the reference to God throughout the 
immediate context. 

11. To these exhortations, which move along the line of the main thought 
of the chapter thus far, and bring it to its end, the writer now appends a new 
exhortation, not to speak against one another. The connection here.is some- 
what uncertain. Possibly, there is a return to the general thought of conten- 
tions, etc., at the end of chap. iii. and beginning of chap. iv.; possibly, he 
reminds them that, even in reference to the desires for worldly things, they 
should not be too ready to condemn one another. The speaking against in- 
volves a censorious judgment. The reason given for the exhortation is akin to 
that suggested by Paul in Rom. xiv. 4, where the words correspond substantially 
with those in ver. 12) of this chapter. James, however, first introduces the 
statements of ver. 1106. The one who speaks against a brother speaks against 
and judges the law. The law here referred to is the law of love, —that is, either 
the Christian law itself, or the O. T. law which is fulfilled and filled out in its 
complete meaning, so far as duties to one another are concerned, by the loving 
one’s neighbor as one’s self. —12. The view of Huther respecting ver. 116 is to 
be regarded as correct. The man who judges the law puts himself in a position 
above the law, and instead of doing what it requires, which is his duty as a man, 
he becomes a judge in and of himself, usurping thus a function which does not 
belong to him. This function of judge appertains to Him alone who is the law- 
giver, and who is able to assign the destiny of men. The words ὁ δυνάμενος, 
k,7.2., in the construction of the sentence, belong to the subject, being apposi- 
tional to and explanatory of εἰς, The last words of ver. 12, as following these, 
press the impropriety.of such judgment of one another very emphatically. 


Lx 
CHAPTER IV. 13—CHAPTER V. 6. 
Vv. 13-17. 


1. These verses seem to form one section of the Epistle, which is divided by 
the close of chap. iv. into two sub-sections. These two sub-sections have refer- 
ence, the first to the presumptuous confidence in the certainty of future oppor- 
tunities for work and success which those devoted to worldly gain seem often to 
have; and the second, to the oppressions, etc., of selfish rich men, upon whom a 
woe is denounced. The connection of this passage with what precedes seems 
less evident than in the case of former passages; but the thought may be re- 
garded as following along the general line of the exhortation not to love the 
world, or the things of the world. Whether the rich here alluded to are those 
in the church, or outside of it, is a question of some difficulty. Huther takes 
the latter view. This harmonizes with the probable reference of πλούσιος, in 
chap. ii., and is favored by the fact that the language which the writer uses 
appears almost too strong for any proper application to Christians. At the 
same time, the Epistle is addressed to Christians, and it would seem that some 
application to them must be intended. Perhaps the true view is that the writer 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 125 


is addressing professedly Christian rich men, but with the vigorous and denun- 
ciatory language which characterizes him, and which is due to his abhorrence 
of all worldliness, and his deep sense of its inconsistency with the righteousness 
of true Christian living. If this be not the correct view, we may believe that he 
intends, while warning the worldly rich, to apply the same admonition to the 
Christian readers, so far as any of them may be led away to the same actions 
and wrong-doing. —2. The phrase ἄγε viv arrests attention, and demands the 
thought of the persons addressed upon the subject presented. The repetition 
of this phrase in y. 1, inasmuch as it is used nowhere else, seems, as Huther 
also suggests, to indicate a close union between the two sub-sections; and per- 
haps, also, it indicates that the movement of the writer’s thought, even from the 
beginning of iv. 13, is towards the κλαύσατε of v. 1, and the declarations which 
follow in the subsequent verses. —3. The view of Huther with respect to τήνδε, 
with which R. V. and some other commentators, as well as Buttmann (N. T. 
Gram.), agree, is in all probability correct. The sentence in which this word 
occurs may be supposed to contain the very words which the men referred to 
would use: having a particular city in mind, they would naturally speak of it 
as this city. 

4, Westcott and Hort adopt the reading which omits τά before τῆς αὔριον and 
γάρ following ποία, The meaning thus becomes, You know not of what sort the 
life of the morrow will be ; i.e., what will be your condition and circumstances. 
The other reading, which separates ποία from τῆς αὔριον, gives to the sentence 
more of that nervous force which belongs to this author, and brings out more 
distinctly the uncertainty of life. The yap following ποία is probably to be 
omitted. In the following clause, éore is supported by the best authorities, 
What sort of thing is your life? A thing full of uncertainty, for you are a 
vapor, appearing for a little time and then vanishing away. That this is the 
true sense of the passage, is also indicated by ver. 15, which is founded upon 
what is implied in ποία 7 ζωὴ ὑμῶν. ----ὅ. The particle νῦν, in ver. 16, seems to be 
equivalent to: as the case now stands; as the fact of the case is. The word ἀλα- 
ζονείαις denotes the confident boasting and assurance which belong to such pre- 
sumptuous planning and action as that which has been referred to. All glorying 
in such presumptuousness is wicked. Thus far, he has only called attention to 
and rebuked this disregard of God, with reference to the question of the continu- 
ance of life. —6. Ver. 17 evidently contains in its words a general statement; 
but by reason of its position at the end of one part of a section of the Epistle, it 
must have a particular application to the matter referred to in the verses imme- 
diately preceding. The meaning of the verse, therefore, as here introduced, 
must be, that, inasmuch as they knew what was right in this matter of the 
uncertainty of the future, and yet, notwithstanding this knowledge, acted as 
they did, they were guilty of actual sin. This verse is introduced by οὖν as a 
conclusion from what goes before. This conclusion-element in the sentence 
seems to belong to the special application, rather than the general truth. The 
general truth can hardly be supposed to result as an inference from what has 
been here said about their thoughtlessness and presumptuousness as to the un- 
certainty of life. The special application, on the other hand, results naturally, 
and the sentence, as such an inference, becomes an impressive rebuke of their 
sin. In this way, also, the verse becomes a kind of transition passage, carrying 
the thought over to the severer rebuke and denunciation which fill the opening 
verses of the following chapter. 


120 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


6.4 
CHAPTER V. 
Vv. 1-6. 


7. The address now turns to the rich. These are either the same persons 
with those addressed in iv. 13, only speaking of them in another light, or a 
portion of the class there mentioned who had acquired wealth. It would seem 
from the severity of the language here used, as well as from certain individual 
expressions in vv. 4-6, that the writer has in mind persons who were not merely 
trading, etc., with presumptuous disregard of the possibility of the ending of 
life, or of the power of God over their lives, but were also guilty of oppression, 
and other acts of injustice, towards the poor. The passage is denunciatory of 
judgment. Precisely what the judgment here referred to is, may be questioned, 
— whether the expressions give a figurative presentation of the final condemna- 
tion which will come upon them from God, or whether, on the other hand, they 
refer to the calamities which were expected immediately to precede the second 
coming of the Lord, or, if the Epistle was written before that event, those which 
were realized in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. —8. The simi- 
larity of this passage in its general style to some of the denunciatory passages 
in the O. T. prophetic writings will not fail to be noticed. The writer of this 
Epistle evidently resembled the prophets in character. His words here rise into 
the poetic region of the prophetic books, and our interpretation of them is 
doubtless to be affected by this fact. ‘The language used, however, plainly indi- 
cates great calamities impending in the way of Divine judgment, in view of 
which they might well do what he calls upon them to do, namely, weep and 
howl for the miseries that were just before them. The present participle 
ἐπερχομέναις, as well as the expressions, in the last days, ver. 3, and, Be patient 
until the coming of the Lord, implies the nearness of the things to which he 
refers, and the two last-mentioned expressions show that they were those 
which preceded the Lord’s coming. 

9. The things mentioned in vv. 2, 3, are the calamities or the results of the 
calamities. Their riches waste away and are destroyed, and this destruction 
will be a testimony of the destruction which awaits themselves. The connec- 
tion of ὡς πῦρ with the following words, which is favored by Westcott and Hort, 
seems much less simple and natural than the connection with what precedes. 
The latter view of the sentences is adopted by R. V., A. V., and most of the 
recent interpreters. The references to O. T. passages, which Huther makes in 
his note, are sufficient to establish the probability of this view. —10. The ex- 
pression, You are laying up treasures in the last days, is apparently to be under- 
stood as meaning that they were doing that which was unsuitable and wrong: 
it was the time for repentance, and taking heed to the commands of God. — 
11. From this reference to the destruction and worthlessness of their riches in 
the times of judgment, the writer turns to the setting-forth of some of the 
wrongs or sins of which they were guilty, and which would bring the judgment 
as their result. Mention is made of three of these, as Huther remarks in his 
notes; namely, injustice and oppression as related to the laborers employed by 
them, their wanton luxury and self-indulgence, and their condemnation of the 
righteous. The first two of these points stand in contrast to each other. The 
third has reference apparently to another subject, their treatment of the right- 
eous servants of God; and by reason of the words of the seventh verse, we may 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ToT 


believe that some of the Christian readers may have been sufferers from this 
treatment. —12. The view of Huther, which makes a certain kind of parallelism 
between in the last days (ver. 3), and in the day of slaughter (ver. 5), and thus 
refers the latter to the time of the Divine judgment, appears, on the whole, to 
be the correct view. —13. The expression τὸν δίκαιον is undoubtedly the singular, 
individualizing, as we may say, the plural. This use of the singular is in 
accordance with the style of the passage, —the denunciatory and prophetico- 
poetic style. An especial emphasis is gained by this individualization. The 
language here used might fitly be employed as describing the experience of 
Christ; but the definiteness of the application of all the other phrases in these 
verses to the particular rich men whom the writer has in mind, and the exhor- 
tation of the following verse, which is addressed to the particular Christian 
readers to whom the letter is written, show that it does not refer to Him. 


P41 
Vv. 7-12. 


1. This passage contains (yy. 7-11) an exhortation to patience, which is 
drawn as an inference or conclusion (οὖν) from the verses which precede. 
These verses present the idea of the condemnatory judgment of God against the 
rich oppressors as speedily approaching. In the last clause of the sixth verse, 
the idea of the non-resistance of the righteous who suffer from the oppressions 
and persecutions is presented. The exhortation, however, passes beyond the 
limits of these particular evils, to all the trials and sufferings to which, as 
Christians, they were at that time exposed, and urges the readers to endure 
them patiently, and also, bravely to persevere until the coming of the Lord. 
This is urged upon them by the example of the tiller of the soil, who watches 
for the growth of the seed which he has planted, and waits patiently for the 
two seasons of rain. In the same way as he exercises patience, the readers 
should have it, steadfastly enduring until the end; and they should strengthen 
and establish their hearts in confidence, because the coming of the Lord (has 
drawn near) is near at hand. This repeated reference to the nearness of the 
coning of the Lord, and the striking distinctness of the language used, make 
this passage one of the prominent ones in the N. T., as bearing upon the 
question of the view of the apostolic writers as to the time of that event. It 
must be admitted that it would seem strange to exhort the members of a 
Christian church, in our day, to have patient endurance, with respect to the 
trials befalling them, until the parousia, the coming of the Lord. The 
ordinary preacher does not regard that event as near enough to make it 
natural for him to employ such language. The question, which is one of 
much interest, must be determined by a careful and candid examination of 
each passage in which reference is made to the subject, and by a comparison 
of what are in this way discovered to be the views and expectations of the 
several N. T. writers. It is clear, from the declaration made by Christ in Acts 
i. 7, that the exact time of the coming was not revealed to the disciples. How 
early they placed it, can only be decided by what they say, and the general tenor 
of their teaching on the subject. 

2. The verb στηρίξατε expresses, in substance, the opposite or affirmative, 
which corresponds with the μακροθυμήσατε, as setting forth the more negative 
side of the same idea. They should endure with patience until the coming of 
the Lord, and should establish their hearts in strength and confidence because 


728 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


it was at hand. —3. The exhortation of ver. 9, by reason of its position between 
vv. 7, 8, and vv. 10, 11, must be in the line of thought of all these verses. The 
murmuring against one another, referred to, is apparently an unfavorable judg- 
ment or accusation of which the Christian readers were guilty in their relation 
to each other. Huther thinks that this murmuring was the result of an irrita- 
bility towards one another incident to the experience of all in the oppressions of 
the rich. Whether this limitation is to be accepted, is doubtful, though it may 
be suggested by the early verses of the chapter. It would not, however, be out 
of accordance with the custom of the N. T. writers, in such passages, to pass 
from the particular case first mentioned to other cases of a more general char- 
acter. The correspondence of the thought here with that in Matt. vii. 1 is 
noticed by many, and is quite manifest. —4. The expression, “Behold, the judge 
stands before the doors,” must be understood, in the connection of the verses, as 
involving the idea which is suggested by the last words of ver. 8. The judge is 
Christ. —5. Ver. 10 passes in its thought over ver. 9 to vv. 7, 8, and belongs 
in connection with the idea of the verb μακροθυμεῖν of those verses. The em- 
phatic position of ὑπόδειγμα is thus accounted for. The example of the prophets 
should influence the readers to endure with patience, as, in another way, the 
waiting of the husbandmen should influence them to the same end. In pre- 
senting this ὑπόδειγμα of μακροθυμία, the writer speaks of it also as an example of 
κακοπαθίας, the suffering of evil, because it was the enduring patience under sim- 
ilar circumstances or experiences which he would press as the ground of his 
exhortation. The prophets, who are here, no doubt, the prophets of the O. T., 
are spoken of as those of ἐλάλησαν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ xupivv, By these words, the 
writer apparently intends not merely, as Huther holds, to mark them as stand- 
ing opposed to the world, as the readers do, but as persons who were especially 
honored of God by the commission to speak in His name, and yet were subjected 
to the experience of suffering. —6. The text of the best authorities, in ver. 11, 
reads ὑπομείναντας; and this seems the more natural reading in this place, where 
the preceding reference is to the prophets, and the following one is to Job. It 
is of the O. T. examples of patient endurance that the writer speaks. The fact 
that we count these heroic men of the past happy, is a reason why we should 
imitate them in their μακροθυμία and ὑπομονή. ---. The case of Job is added as 
the most prominent one in the O. T., in that the story of it fills the entire book 
bearing his name, and every hearer (ἠκούσατε) of the O. T., as it was read in the 
synagogues, must have been impressed by it. In a peculiar manner also, 
the record of it gave the resultant blessing from God, in connection with which 
the μακωρισμὸός which we utter is pronounced. The word ὑπομονῆ here, as in all 
other places, means more than patience: it carries in it the idea of steadfast 
endurance under, and notwithstanding, all trials or sufferings. —8. The end of 
the Lord is to be understood, with Huther, as the end which God gave him 
after, and as the result of, his patient endurance. The question as to whether 
εἴδετε or ἴδετε is the true reading, is one of some difficulty, owing to the nearly 
equal weight of external authorities on both sides. The most simple way of 
understanding the sentence, however, would seem to be that which makes the 
whole a reference to the knowledge or conviction connected with the case of 
Job; and, if this be the case, εἴδετε (corresponding with ἠκούσατε) and the union 
of this verb with the preceding words, would appear to be the most probable 
text and construction of the sentence. The particle 67 is to be understood as 
meaning that or how that. This explanation accords with the rendering of the 
sentence which is givenin R. ¥. The verb ἐστιν of the last clause of the verse 
is the propositional present. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 729 


9. The tenth verse properly forms a paragraph in itself, and introduces a 
new subject. The phrase πρὸ πάντων presents the exhortation with respect to 
swearing as one which the writer would especially impress upon his -readers. 
Whether these words, however, can be pressed so far as to involve the idea that 
the writer would insist upon this as the first and most urgent exhortation of 
the whole Epistle, may be questioned.—10. The similarity of this verse to 
Matt. v. 34-36 is very striking, and is noticeable in several points: (a) μὴ 
ὄμνύετε (James), μὴ ὀμόσαε ὅλως (Matthew); (b) neither by heaven, nor by the 
earth (James and Matthew); nor by any other oath (James); nor by Jerusalem, 
nor by thy head, giving examples of other oaths (Matthew); ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ, 
val, kai τὸ od, οὔ (James); ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν vai vai, οὗ ob (Matthew). There 
can scarcely be a doubt that James bases his language here on that of Jesus. 
The same question arises here as in Matthew, whether the intention is to 
prohibit all oaths, or only the oaths which were frequent in daily conversation. 
It will be observed that in both cases (Matthew and James), the swearing 
by God is not mentioned, unless— which seems improbable —it is included by 
James under the phrase by any other oath. It will also be observed that the 
passage in Matthew indicates a feeling of the solemnity of an oath by God on 
the part of the Jews, which might naturally exclude this from the oaths 
referred to and prohibited. The fact that solemn asseverations are added to 
simple assertions by the N. T. writers themselves, at times, may also indicate 
that an absolute prohibition of every thing beyond the mere yea and nay was 
not intended. At the same time, in the perfected state of the Divine kingdom, 
it can hardly be supposed that oaths will be known; and laws such as those in 
Matt. v., which are expressive of the inmost principles of the Divine govern- 
ment, set forth what is according to the standard of that perfected state. The 
question is certainly one of no inconsiderable difficulty. The view of Meyer, 
Bleek, ete., is that Christ’s prohibition is absolute and universal; and with them 
Beyschlag seems to agree substantially, so far as the universality of the prohi- 
bition is concerned. These writers (Meyer, Bleek, etc.) hold that it has reference 
to the ideal state of His kingdom, ‘‘ while in the present incomplete temporal 
condition of Christianity, as well as in the relation to the world in which it is 
placed, and to the existing relations to public law to which it conforms itself, 
the oath has its necessary indeed, but conditional and temporary, existence.”’ 
It would seem that, James must be speaking with a more particular reference to 
practical evils surrounding him, and not so much from the standpoint of the 
ideal state of the kingdom, and that he therefore ‘has in mind the oaths used 
in ordinary life and conversation. —11. As for the construction of τὸ ναὶ, vai, 
«.7.4., in this verse in James, it is certainly possible to take the sentence either 
as R. V. text oras R. V. margin has it: either, let your yea be yea, and your 
nay, nay; or, let yours be the yea, yea, and the nay, nay. Westcott and Hort 
apparently understand the words in the latter way. If the latter view be 
adopted, the correspondence with Matthew is closer than it is on the other 
explanation; but, taken in the former way, the difference between James’s 
sentence and Christ’s, as given by Matthew, belongs rather to the accidents, 
than to the essentials of the prohibition. Perhaps the best explanation is that 
given by R. V. marg., and the article may refer to the well-known expression, 
yea, yea, nay, nay, in the Sermon on the Mount. —12. The clause a... 
méonte is not found in Christ’s words, but it expresses what may be easily 
inferred from them. The judgment here referred to is the condemnatory 
judgment of God. 


730 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


x. 
Vv. 15-20. 


1. These closing verses of the Epistle call the attention of the readers to 
several points which have no immediate connection with ver. 12, or with the 
verses which precede that verse. ‘Their connection with one another, it may 
be added, is not very close and immediate. The first exhortations have 
reference to the opposite experiences of suffering or sickness, and of joy or 
gladness. Both in suffering and joy the expression of the heart is to be 
directed towards God, either in prayer or the singing of psalms. Then the 
words turn to the case of sickness. Here the elders are to be called in, 
apparently as connecting the earnest desire of the church with that of the sick 
person. The prayers of the elders are regarded as the efficacious clement in 
the case (ver. 15); how far the anointing with oil is looked upon as having 
healing power, is not made clear. The assurance of healing is given in an 
absolute way; but all such sentences with regard to the removal of physical 
evils, etc., need to be interpreted with a constant remembrance of the suprem- 
acy of the will and wisdom of God. The word save is almost certainly to be 
taken, with Huther, in the sense of: will lead to his recovery from the sickness. 
This is indicated by the following clause: the Lord will raise him up, as well 
as by the fact that the forgiveness is spoken of, in the closing sentence of the 
verse, as if a distinct thing. —2. οὖν of ver. 16 makes this verse a conclusion, or 
inference, drawn from the preceding. Neander says that as James ‘‘ regards 
the presbyters in the light of organs of the church, so he holds all other 
Christians in such a relation, as members of one body, that they should 
mutually pray for one another in bodily and spiritual need, should confess 
their sins to one another, and pray for the forgiveness of each other’s sins.” 
The close connection of this verse with ver. 15 seems to make it probable that 
Huther was right in his earlier editions of his commentary, in making ἰαθῆτε 
refer to the healing of physical maladies, but it is possible that the author of 
the Epistle means to give this word a wider range of meaning. —3. R. V. agrees 
with Huther in translating évepyouuévy (ver. 17), in its working. The example 
of Elijah is introduced, as is that of Job a few verses earlier, and also that of 
the prophets, because it was an instance of the remarkable power of prayer 
which occurred in the history of one of the great characters of the O. T. 
times, and was well known to all from the reading of the O. T. in the 
synagogues. The explanation of the difference in the counting of time between 
James and the O. T., referred to by Huther as favored by Benson, would seem, 
on the whole, to be a satisfactory one. It is evident, at all events, that Luke 
(iv. 25) and James have the same statement as to the time, and we may believe 
that, in some way, the three years and a half were recognized, at this period, as 
the interval in question. The error, if it be such, is not at all vital to the point 
here in hand. What Huther has to say, in his note, respecting the twofold 
prayer of Elijah, is sufficient to meet any difficulty that may be suggested. — 
4, The final exhortation of the Epistle has reference, apparently, to the Christian 
brother who has been led astray from the truth. This is indicated by ἐν ὑμῖν, 
and its position in the sentence. The connection with the general exhortation 
to pray for one anotheris thus natural, and the words are in the same line of 
brotherly love. — The multitude of sins covered in the case supposed are those 
of the one who is restored from his wanderings. — The closing of the Epistle 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. Veal 


with these words seems abrupt, but is perhaps such as we might have looked for, 
from the character of the writer, as we see it manifested in the whole course 
of the letter. It is an abruptness which leaves the reader with an urgent 
bidding to help and to save. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


XIII. 
CHAPTER I. 
νυν» ὦ. 


1. The general characteristics of the salutation correspond with those of 
Paul’s Epistles; yet there are certain peculiarities, as, indeed, there are in the 
different letters of that apostle. ‘The correspondence in phraseology with what 
is found in the Pauline Epistles is in many places in this Epistle noticeable 
and striking; and there is considerable evidence in connection with this fact to 
show that Peter may have been a reader of some of those Epistles, and have 
been affected in his own writing by them.—2. The persons addressed are 
evidently Christians (ἐκλεκτοὶς), and Christians living in Gentile regions where 
the Jews were scattered. That the readers were not wholly of the Jewish- 
Christian body, is indicated by several passages in the Epistle (e.g., i. 14, ii. 10); 
but it would seem probable that they were partly or mainly such, and that they 
may be described as they are, because they were in places whither Jews had 
gone forth from their own land, and where they had found a dwelling-place. 
They are described also as παρεπίδημοι, that is, persons who come from another 
country to a particular region to dwell there beside the natives of the region. 
They are looked upon thus as strangers in the districts alluded to, belonging to 
the class who had gone thither from Palestine, and were Christian converts. 
—3. The word éxdexroic is defined and further developed in its idea by three 
phrases: (a) κατὰ πρύγνωσιν θεοὺ πατρός, the election was in accordance with the 
foreknowledge of God the Father; the word πρόγνωσιν denoting foreknowledge, 
and carrying back the choice of these persons to be recipients of the great 
Divine blessing to that foreknowledge of God, which, in the order of thought, 
preceded His pre-determining purpose and decree. —(b) ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος, 
the election moved, so to speak, to its result in the sphere of sanctification 
which comes from the Holy Spirit. — (c)ei¢ ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαστισμὸν αἵματος ’I. X., 
the end in view of the election was obedience and sprinkling, etc. The obedi- 
ence here spoken of seems to indicate the moral side of the Christian life, the 
result of faith as it works through love, and the sprinkling, etc., to the side of 
Divine forgiveness and the cleansing power of the blood of Christ. The two 
things together make up the full idea of the Christian life as viewed on the 
subjective and objective side. —4. The last sentence of ver. 2 introduces the 
word πληθυνθείη, which we do not find in the Pauline salutations. As Huther 
remarks, however, this word occurs in 2 Pet. i. 2, and Jude 2, and it may 
perhaps be suggestive as to the relations of the three Epistles to one another. 


182 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


ΤΥ; 
Vv. 3-12. 


1. The opening words of ver. 3 are found in Eph. i. 3, with a similar con- 
struction of ὁ with a past participle following immediately afterwards. Paul, 
however, turns the thought of the reader, in connection with the ascription of 
praise, especially towards the choice and fore-ordination of God, which Peter has 
alluded to in his words of salutation. Peter directs his attention rather to hope 
and the future inheritance, as connected particularly with the resurrection of 
Christ from the dead. God is spoken of as having begotten us again to a living 
hope, etc., by which the apostle seems to mean that the new life into which we 
are brought by the Divine influence, so far as it moves out into the sphere of 
hope of the future blessedness in heaven, is made a real experience to us by 
means of the resurrection of Christ. The hope is called living, because it ‘‘ has 
vital power in itself, and exerts the same upon the soul”? (Thayer’s Grimm’s 
Lex.). —2. The preposition εἰς, at the beginning of ver. 4, is, in a certain sense, 
parallel with the same preposition in ver. 3, and inacertain sense it is not. 
Grammatically, and in the construction of the long sentence, it is so; but in the 
thought, the hope looks forward to the inheritance, and we are begotten of God 
to a hope which is realized finally in the actual possession of the inheritance. — 
3. The verb τηρέω seems to be used here in the sense of ἀπόκειμαι in Col. i. 5, 
2 Tim. iv. 8. The inheritance is kept in reserve in heaven during the period of 
hope. Huther holds that the perfect participle here suggests the idea of the 
nearness of the time when the inheritance will be received, but this may be 
pressing the force of the tense too far.—4. The word φρουρουμένους is used in 
Gal. iii. 23 of those who were kept in ward, in a kind of guardianship, until the 
faith-system should be fully revealed. The condition under the law was pre- 
paratory and educational with reference to the gospel. Here the idea seems 
rather to be that of preservation by being guarded, and thus protected from 
dangers and disaster, with a view to, and until the attainment of, the blessing 
designed for us in the future. The word is the same as that which is used by 
Paul of the guarding of the city of Damascus to prevent his escape. The foun- 
dation meaning is the same in all cases, but the peculiar shade of meaning or 
the special application is determined by the context. The guarding takes place 
in the sphere of God’s power: it is accomplished by the exercise of that power. 
It is accomplished also by means of faith, in that faith in the person guarded is 
that by means of which God is able, in accordance with His plan of salvation, 
to keep him safe until the end. —5, The preposition εἰς before σωτηρίαν carries 
with it, perhaps, both the idea of for and until ; or it may mean with reference 
to, leaving the idea of until to be suggested by the sentence as a whole. A 
salvation (R. V.), rather than salvation (A. V.), is to be understood as the 
meaning of σωτηρίαν. The phrase ready to be revealed answers to the idea of 
the participle reserved (ver. 4). 

6. The phrase ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ evidently refers to the time of the final realiza- 
tion of salvation; that is, the time of the ending of the world, and of the second 
coming of Christ. The ending of the αἰὼν οὗτος was to be followed by the 
entrance of the saints upon the consummated blessedness of the kingdom. — 7. 
The question as to the reference of the relative ᾧ of ver. 6, as it seems to the 
writer of this note, is to be determined in connection with that respecting the 
present or future sense of ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, If the verb is to be regarded as a present, 
the relative more naturally refers to the thought of the preceding sentence; but 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 733 
a 

if the verb has a future sense, 6 refers most probably to ἐσχάτῳ καιρῷ: That the 
verb is a future in sense, or, rather, the present carried forward to the future 
standpoint, is not certain; but this seems, on the whole, to be the most probable 
supposition. It is certainly more difficult to explain the aorist participle λυπη- 
θέντες, the use of ἄρτι, the participles κομιζόμενοι (ver. 9) and δεδοξασμένῃ (ver. 8), 
if the verb has the full present sense in this verse and ver. 8, than if it is the 
present as of afuture time. If ὦ refers to καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ, this carrying forward 
of the present in ver. 6 is somewhat easily accounted for: and yet it must be 
admitted, that in both verses a future tense would be more natural if the 
intended meaning were future; and in ver. 8, the immediate connection be- 
tween ἀγαπᾶτε, which is an undoubted present in signification, and ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, 
furnishes an argument of considerable force for the present sense in the case of 
the latter verb. The confidence with which some writers affirm the future sense 
passes beyond the state of the arguments on the two sides. At the most, there 
is but a certain greater measure of probability in favor of this view. —If ἀγαλλι- 
ἄσθε of ver. 6 is to be taken as the ordinary present, the aorist λυπηθέντες is best 
explained as referring to an actual experience of trial and temptation which had 
befallen the readers in the past, and out of which they had now come. In this 
case, ἐν ᾧ is best translated wherein, referring to the words, a salvation, etc., of 
the preceding verse. —8. On the word δοκίμιον, see Note II. 4, on Jas. i. 3. — 
9. The construction of the adjective πολυτιμότερον is somewhat doubtful. -Huther 
takes it with εὑρεθῇ, and the points which he urges against its appositional con- 
nection with τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως are worthy of serious consideration. By 
reason, however, of the position of this adjective and its accompanying words in 
the sentence, and the fact that εἰς ἔπαινον, «.7.2., forms a sufficient defining phrase 
for the verb, it seems, on the whole, better to give the adjective the appositional 
relation referred to, as is done by R. V. and A. V. This apposition is with 
δοκίμιον grammatically, but in thought it is with the compound idea approved- 
ness of faith, if this meaning be given to the phrase, or with πίστεως, if δοκίμιον 
is regarded as meaning proof or proving. More probably the former meaning is 
to be given to dox. τ. πίστ.: and thus approved faith, or tested faith, is declared to 
be a more precious thing than gold that perishes. The force of δὲ δοκιμαζομένου 
is probably not though it is tried by fire, but and, or and yet, ete. The fact that 
gold, a thing which perishes, is tested by fire, is put in comparison with faith; 
and thus is suggested the idea of the naturalness of such testing by trials, and 
even fiery trials, as has been alluded to in the case of the Christian believer. 
The verb εὑρεθῇ is equivalent here to be proved or shown to be. [Kiihl holds that 
the meaning of δοκίμιον is means of testing or proving. He regards the thought 
of the apostle as in substance this: If fire has value as a means of testing, 
because by it gold, which is perishable, is proved to be a precious thing; much 
more value must the λύπαι or sufferings have as a means of testing, inasmuch 

as by them faith, an imperishable thing, is proved to be real faith. ] 
10. The apparent parallelism of ἀγαπᾶτε and ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, when we consider 
these verbs in themselves, and in connection with the participles inserted be- 
' tween them, constitutes a strong argument for regarding the latter verb as fully 
present in its signification, like the former. The following participles, dedo- 
ξασμένῃ and κομιζόμενοι, point toward the future sense. The adjective ἀνεκλαλήτῳ 
is claimed by Keil to have, as distinguished from ἀρρῆτῳ or ἀλαλήτῳ, a meaning 
more suited to describe the future heavenly joy, inexpressible, unspeakable, too 
great to be expressed in human language. In view of these last points, if 
indeed the last of all be admitted, and of the considerations connected with 


“ 


194 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 
bd 

ver. 6, there is a somewhat greater probability that the future sense is to be given 
in both cases to ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, than that it refers to a present experience. [Kiihl 
regards the verb ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, in both verses, as present in signification.] —11. The 
explanation of τέλος and σωτηρίαν given by Huther is correct. The former word 
means that to which faith is directed, that to which it looks and in which it 
ends; the latter, the completed salvation, salvation in its fully realized state in 
eternity, that salvation which is revealed in the last time. —12. The object of 
vy. 10-12 seems to be to set forth with emphasis before the minds of the readers, 
what a glorious and precious thing the assurance of this salvation, as before 
them in the future, is, by calling to their remembrance the earnest searching 
and inquiry of the O. T. prophets with reference to it. The prophets are 
described as having prophesied respecting the grace which “‘ was destined for, 
or was to come to, you:”’ that is, the believers of the Christian period, to which 
number the readers of the Epistle belonged. They were thus enlightened as to 
what was to come (the χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ), though they did not understand it in all 
its fulness. But they were not enlightened as to the time and circumstances, — 
they were searching into the depths of an unsolved and unrevealed problem, 
when they inquired what and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which 
was in them did point unto, when it testified, etc. The rule of prophecy, as we 
may call it, both in the O. T. and the N. T., was to reveal to the prophet, more 
or less clearly, the matter to which the prophecy had reference, but to conceal 
the time, —both τίνα, what it should be, and ποῖον of what sort, with what 
attendant circumstances, surroundings, etc., ete. This fact may have an impor- 
tant bearing on the question as to whether the apostles may, or may not, in con- 
sistency with the fact of their inspiration, have been under a misapprehension 
with respect to the time of the second coming. We may remember that Jesus 
Himself said to them (Acts i. 6), ‘‘It is not for you to know the times or the 
seasons, which the Father has set within His own authority.’’ —13. The expres- 
sion, the Spirit of Christ, as used in this passage, is, like the expression in 1 Cor. 
x. 4, the rock was Christ, an indication that the apostles believed in the pre- 
existence of Christ. —14. The expression τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα is to be regarded 
as referring to the sufferings which were destined or appointed for Christ Him- 
self, and the glories (plural) correspond with the sufferings. The Spirit testified 
within these prophets, and through them, of these experiences awaiting Christ, 
and He also revealed to them the fact that in their ministration of these things, 
—that is, their fulfilment of the prophetic office in announcing what was made 
known to their minds, — they were doing this work for those who should follow 
in the Christian period. The things which they prophesied are those which 
had been now announced to the readers by the same Holy Spirit, through the 
preachers of the gospel. 


Ve 
Vv. 13-25. 


1. διό, with which this passage opens, refers backward to the general thought 
of the preceding verses. This thought is that of the certainty and assurance of 
the salvation which was ready to be revealed in the last time. In view of this 
thought, the exhortations of the Epistle, which begin at.the thirteenth verse, 
are urged. The passage from ver. 3 to ver. 12 is introductory in its character, 
like the introductions of the Pauline Epistles; and, like them, it is opened by 
an ascription of praise to God for His goodness in bestowing the blessing 
which is especially referred to. —2. The exhortations begin with one which 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 90 


urges hope upon the readers (ἐλπίσατε). This is the fundamental exhortation 
of the Epistle, as the idea of hope is its fundamental idea. With this verb, 
according to Huther and most commentators, the adverb τελείως is to be con- 
nected. This is probably the correct view of the matter, and the exhortation 
is to have a hope which has no intermingling of doubt or fear. Westcott and 
Hort join the adverb with νήφοντες : but there seems to be no special reason for 
adding the word to this participle, for being sober, in such a case, necessarily 
carries with itself the idea of being perfectly suber. This participle in the 
present tense indicates that sober-mindedness is to be the permanent abiding 
state in which the fulfilment of the more special exhortation should (aorist 
participle and imperative) take place. The aorist ἐλπίσατε, followed by ἐπί 
with the accusative, is well translated in R. V. by set your hope perfectly on 
the grace, etc. —3. That the view of Huther, with respect to the phrase the 
grace, ete., is correct, is shown by the principal indications of the verse itself, 
and of the preceding context: thus the verb hope, and the expression 866 
your hope on, which point to the future; the revelation of Jesus Christ, which 
is the revelation at His second coming; the connection through διό with the 
preceding verses, which point forward to the future; and the third verse, which 
gives the keynote to the thought of the entire passage which it opens. The 
words χάριν and φερομένην, which are urged against this view, are reconcilable 
with it in the way suggested by Huther. —4. Ver. 14 introduces a second 
exhortation, subordinate to this first and leading one; an exhortation, the 
development of which is carried forward as far as the end of the twenty-first 
verse. This exhortation is to holiness. They should live, not after their former 
manner before their conversion, but in accordance with that holiness which God 
Himself set before them, and called them to. The passage opens with a call 
upon them to act in this way, because it was befitting that Christians should 
doso. As Christians, they were, and should be, children of obedience, that is, 
persons whose source of character is obedience, whose distinctive characteristic 
this is; and as such persons, they should live after the manner which is indi- 
cated, because this is the command of God. The word συσχηματιζόμενοι is parallel 
with κατὰ τὸν kad, . . . ἅγιον, in the way of contrast, and gives the idea of manner; 
but it seems necessary to connect it with γενήθητε, or a word suggested by that 
verb, instead of taking it as Huther does. —5, The simplest and most natural 
construction of κατὰ τὸν. . . ἅγιον (ver. 15), is that of R. V. marg., by which 
ἅγιον is regarded as a noun, and καλέσαντα as a descriptive adjective. This 
construction seems, also, to give the simplest character to the sentence: Like, or 
after the pattern of, the Holy One who called you, do you also become holy, 
etc., because it is written, Ye shall be holy, for Iam holy. [Kiihl regards διό of 
ver. 13 as referring either to vv. 10-13, or to the whole thought of the preceding 
passage. He agrees with Huther in connecting τελείως with ἐλπίσατε, With 
respect to φερομένην he holds a different view from Huther, regarding it as a 
present participle in sense, as well as in form, and taking ἐν ἀποκαλύψει in close 
connection with χάριν. He thus would not carry forward the thought wholly 
into the future, but would centre it upon the present and permanent manifes- 
tation of grace. ] 

6. Ver. 17 connects with the exhortation of vv. 14-16 another, which seems 
to be subordinate to it, and, strictly speaking, a part of it. The holy manner 
of living involves, in our relation to God, that we should live, during this 
sojourn on earth, in that fear which bears in remembrance the thought of Him 
as an impartial judge. This fear has reference to sin, and thus the exhortation 


180 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


is a part of the general one, to live the holy life. The time of the sojourning is 
mentioned, apparently, with a view to the critical character of it, as related to 
the final result; and perhaps, also, with reference to the brevity of it, as pre- 
ceding the time of judgment.—7. Ver. 18 gives a reason for the preceding 
exhortation, by reminding the readers of their knowledge that they were 
redeemed from their vain manner of life by the precious blood of Christ. It 
cost the blood of Christ to buy them out of their former way of living ; surely 
they should with holy fear follow the opposite way of living, now that they had 
been called of God.—8. The former manner of life is spoken of as handed 
down from the fathers. This word πατροπαραδότου, and also the word ματαίας, 
seem more adapted to describe Gentiles (heathen) than Jews (persons educated 
under the O. T.); but they do not prove that the readers must have been 
Gentiles. —9. The reference in the word lamb (ver. 19) to Isa. lili. 7, supposed 
by Huther, is not improbably the correct reference. This seems to be the 
reference intended in John i. 29. The placing of the words ὡς ἄμνου, k.7.2., 
before the word Χριστοῦ, seems to give an emphasis both to them and to it. — 
10. The participle προεγνωσμένου corresponds with the substantive πρόγνωσιν of 
ver. 1. In both cases, the word is chosen which carries back the fore-ordination 
to the foreknowledge, and the meaning, accordingly, is not fore-ordained, in the 
strictest sense of that word. In the formation of the Divine plan, the mission 
and sacrifice of Christ were foreseen and foreknown, as involved in the plan, 
and were predetermined in its adoption. This was before the foundation of the 
world, in eternity past; the manifestation of Christ was in the closing period 
of the αἰὼν οὗτος, the end of the times.—11. The manifestation of Christ is 
declared to have been made on account of the readers as believers, and to the 
end that their faith and hope might be in God. At the end of the passage, 
the thought is thus brought back to the point from which the beginning was 
made in ver. 13. Huther agrees with Weiss and others, against the majority 
of commentators, in translating ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἰς Θεόν: so that 
your faith is (may be) at the same time hope in God. If this rendering is 
adopted, — and it would seem not improbable that it should be, —the return to 
the idea of hope, which is that of ver. 13, and the governing one of the Epistle, 
becomes more emphatically marked. [Kiihl remarks that the words redeemed 
from your vain manner of life, etc., do not present the idea of the ransoming 
from guilt by the payment of a price, as elsewhere in the N. T.; but of ran- 
soming from the slavery to sin. The sinful life held the readers as slaves before 
their conversion. Of the word mpoeyywouévov, he says that the meaning is, 
foreknown as the one who alone would be qualified to be the Messiah and 
Redeemer. He agrees with Huther in his construction of the clause Gore, 
k,7.A., of ver. 21.] 

12, The third exhortation given in vv. 22-25 may also be regarded as, in a 
sense, subordinate to that of ver. 14, which exhorts to holiness; but it is not as 
fully so as is the second one, that of vv. 17-21. The connection with the idea 
of ver. 14 ff. seems to be indicated by the first words of ver. 22. These words 
point to purification through obedience as preparatory to the fulfilment of the 
duty of loving one another. The preposition εἰς denotes the end in view of 
the purification, this particular end being mentioned because of the exhorta- 
tion which is to follow. The adverb ἐκτενῶς means, as Alford has it, with the 
energies on the stretch. On this word, and on ἐκ καρδίας, as Huther remarks, 
the chief emphasis lies. —13. The participle ἀναγεγεννημένοι is equivalent to: 
since you are (have been) born again of incorruptible seed. This incorruptible 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 737 


seed is best taken as referring to the spiritual force, the Divine Spirit, which is 
the originating power of the new life. This power works through the word of 
God. The grounds mentioned by Huther, as opposing this view, do not seem 
to be decisive against the general indications of the N. T., that the Holy Spirit 
is the origin of the spiritual life. The word of God, which here means the 
gospel, is spoken of as living and abiding, as, in the O. T. citation, it is said 
to abide forever. The force of these words is indicated by the contrast set 
forth in the cited passage. They suggest the permanent and ever-continuing 
energy of that power by means of which the Spirit brings about the new life in 
the soul. [Kiihl regards ver. 22 as beginning a new section which extends as far 
as ii. 10, the thought of ver. 22 being resumed in ii. 1, after the long quotation 
from the O. T. He assents to Huther’s view, that the seed refers to the word of 
God, and not to the Spirit. He holds, with Huther, that ἐκτενῶς ἀγαπῆσατε is to 
be understood as conveying the twofold idea of perseverance and intensity; 
and he regards the latter as the fruit of the living word, and the former, of 
the abiding word. ] 


XVI. 
CHAPTER II. 
Vv. 1-10. 


The beginning of this chapter is immediately connected with the close of 
the preceding one, ovv, therefore, referring backward to the idea expressed in 
ἀναγεγεννημένοι, x,7.A, As they were begotten again to a new and spiritual life, 
they should lay aside every thing that was opposite to and inconsistent with 
it, and should give themselves to that which would develop its power within 
themselves. With respect to the words and phrases of these first ten verses of 
the second chapter, the following points may be especially noticed: 1. The 
laying aside of the evil was, strictly, to precede the sending forth the desires 
after the good; the soul being cleared, as it were, in preparation for the coming 
action and the changed life. Substantially, however, the two things were 
contemporaneous. —2. The word κακία is to be. understood here in the more 
limited sense of malice, according to Huther, Alford, Keil, οἷς. ἢ but R. V. text 
renders it, in the more general sense, wickedness, and there seems to be no 
sufficient reason against understanding it in this way. If it is thus understood, 
it ts a general word, to which the following words, as designating particular 
evils, are subordinate. —3. The expression ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη is rightly under- 
stood by Huther as indicating that the readers were, in view of the goal of 
manhood yet afar off, but recently born again. The connection between 
ἀρτιγέννητα and ἀναγεγεννημένοι is evident. The whole thought is moving in the 
sphere of the idea of the new birth. —4. The adjective λογικόν is most naturally 
taken in the same sense in which it is used in Rom. xii. 1, the only other 
passage in which the word occurs in the N. T. It is nearly equivalent to 
spiritual. Strictly speaking, it seems to designate the thing spoken of, as not 
to be understood in the physical or material sense, but as pertaining to the 
region of the mind or reason, or the higher and spiritual part of the man. 
Of course the precise shade of idea will almost necessarily vary in different 
connections, but the same notion lies at the basis of the word in all cases of 
this character. In Dr. Thayer’s Lexicon, the phrase λογικὴ λατρεία, in Romans, 
is explained as the worship which is rendered by the reason or soul; the phrase 
λογικὸν yada in this passage, the milk which nourishes the soul. The adjective 


198 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


ἄδολυν conveys the idea of unadulterated, and thus pure. The connection of 
the passage seems to show clearly that γάλα refers to the word of the Lord; and 
this word of the Lord, the gospel, is by the two defining adjectives described 
as unadulterated, i.e., unmingled with any thing which takes away from or 
obscures its truth, such as wrong teachings, etc., and as spiritual, i.e., pertaining 
to the life and growth of the soul in the spiritual sphere. For this they were to 
send forth the ardent desires of their souls. —5. The end in view which they 
should have in the outgoing of these desires was, that in the sphere of this 
word they might grow, as in the development of the natural life, from birth 
towards maturity, unto the full experience and realization of salvation (ei¢ 
cwtnpiav), —6. εἴπερ, if this, and not εἰ, be adopted as the true reading (ver. 3), 
carries with it, according to its general use, the idea of a supposition assumed 
to be a fact, and apparently also, according to what seems to be the usage in 
the N. T., the idea of a supposition which the writer holds to be rightly thus 
assumed. More probably, however, εἰ is the true text here. By this con- 
ditional clause the apostle supports his exhortation ἐπεπόθησατε, as a suitable 
and natural one. [Kiihl agrees with Huther as to the meaning of κακία, He 
regards ὡς of ver. 2, as equivalent to since, and not the particle of comparison. 
The ὡς clause thus involves a declaration of a fact with respect to the readers, 
—since you are new-born babes. The addition of ἀρτιγέννητα must be due, he 
thinks, to the desire on the writer’s part to emphasize the idea of recent 
entrance upon the Christian life; ἄρτε being the prominent element in the 
‘ word, distinguishing it from the kindred βρέφη. He finds an indication here, 
accordingly, that the letter could not have been written to Pauline churches 
which had been already established for a generation. He supposes λογικόν to 
be connected here with λόγος, word, and the meaning to be, milk which proceeds 
from the word of God. The reference, he thinks, is to Christ as the nourishing 
force of the new life. He is presented to us in the word. ] 

7. The relative ὅν (ver. 4) refers to κύριος, and connects this new exhortation 
with the one which precedes. In fact, we may say that the second exhorta- 
tion is an outgrowth of the first, and, in a sense, is a part of it. The figure 
passes from that of the growth of a man towards maturity to that of a building 
in process of erection; and, as the figure changes, the thought moves outward 
from the development of the individual believer to the development of the whole 
body of believers united together in the church. ‘Ov refers to Christ evidently, 
as is shown by the following words; in the O. T. passage on which the words 
εἰ ἐγεύσασθε, k.7.A., are founded (Ps. xxxiv. 9), ὁ κύριος refers to God. The sugges- 
tion arising from this fact, with respect to the view which the apostle had of 
Christ, is worthy of consideration. —8. The participle spocepyouevoe does not 
have the meaning which it has in Heb. vii. 25, and other passages where it refers 
to approaching God in worship or in seeking for His favor ; but it has the sense 
rather, of drawing near to Christ in the way of communion in heart and life with 
Him.—9. Christ is called a stone, because the figure is that of a building of which 
He is a part, and, in a peculiar sense, the foundation. He is afterwards spoken 
of as the corner-stone. The epithet living is used, apparently, because the writer 
desires to keep the mind of the reader fixed upon the fact that the building is 
one of living men, and because Christ is possessed of and imparts that life 
which is needed for all who are to be built as stones into the building. They 
come to Him, a living stone, and become themselves, in their connection with 
Him, living stones. —10. As to the question whether οἰκοδομεῖσθε is an indicative 
or an imperative, the latter supposition seems on the whole to be preferred, 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 739 


because of the general hortatory character of the passage, and because in this 
way the change of the figure is most easily explained; the same exhortation 
in substance is given, only under the forms of expression involved in the two 
figures. R. V. takes the other view, and regards the verb as indicative. — 
11. There can be no doubt that the true text in ver. 5 reads εἰς before ἱεράτευμα, 
and thus, that this phrase is not appositional to οἶκος πνευματικός. The εἰς is 
either to be connected with the preceding οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἱκ. πν.: be ye built up a 
spiritual house to the end of being a holy priesthood; or, with οὐκ. πν., a spiritual 
house for a holy priesthood. The infinitive ἀνενέγκαι sets forth the end in view 
of the whole combined expression which precedes. —12. The quotation from 
the O. T. is evidently introduced as giving an additional ground of, and an addi- 
tional impressiveness to, the exhortation; and it is the passage from which the 
idea of the stone, and of its character and relation to the building, is borrowed. 
In the verses which include this quotation, 6-10, the verb περιέχει is used intran- 
sitively, and, according to Buttmann, is equivalent to it rwns or stands written ; 
— τιμὴ is probably to be explained in the sense of honor, and the meaning is, to 
you appertains the honor which is connected with this honored position given 
by God to the chief corner-stone. The words Toi¢ πιστεύουσιν are added evidently 
as uniting this clause with ὁ πιστεύων of the cited passage; οἵ of ver. 8 refers to 
the persons designated by ἀπιστοῦσιν, and is substantially equivalent to for they, 
as it is rendered in R. V.; τῷ λόγω is, on the whole, to be joined with ἀπειθοῦντες 
rather than the verb, —they stumble through disobedience to the word;— εἰς ὃ 
refers not to the compound idea of the verb and the participial clause which 
immediately precede, but to the verb only, as Huther takes it, —the stumbling 
is the principal idea of the O. T. words; — ἐτέθησαν were set or appointed, — this 
verb seems to indicate that for which they were appointed in the providential 
arrangement of God, as set forth in the prophecy. —13. The words of ver. 9, 
which describe the persons referred to in ὑμεῖς, i.e., the Christian readers of the 
Epistle, are borrowed from different passages in the O. T.; and thus the quoted 
passage of ver. 6 is continued, in the explanation given, as far as ver. 10. Of 
the words in ver. 9, the three which present the idea of a people or nation are 
to be understood in the same sense, the object being rather to emphasize one 
idea than to present minor distinctions. The idea of the royal priesthood is 
nearly akin to the other, as the conception which the apostolic writers had of 
the Christian believers in the Messianic kingdom was that of a peculiar people 
made up of kings and priests. The expression λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν is equivalent, 
in substance of meaning, to a people especially belonging to God, or God’s own 
in a peculiar sense. The particle ὅπως introduces the following words as express- 
ing the design of the preceding, i.e., of the fact that the believers are, and 
become by their believing, a chosen race, ete. This design is, that they may tell 
out, show forth, the excellences or moral perfections of God. These moral 
perfections are seen in the fact that He called them out of darkness into His 
marvellous light. In the use of the words darkness and light, Peter draws near 
to the idea which John has in his first Epistle; but the words have here some- 
what less of their purely internal or subjective meaning, if it may be so expressed, 
and more of the objective sense — the darkness of their heathen condition, and 
the light of the gospel. [Kiihl calls attention to the force of the present parti- 
ciple προσερχόμενοι (ver. 4) as indicating a continuous, constant drawing near 
to Christ, on the part of the Christian. We should draw near to Him as the 
living stone, in the conviction that He is the living stone. He regards οἰκοδο- 
μεῖσθε as a present indicative. He joins the words εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον immedi- 


740 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


ately with οἶκος xv. In the words of vv. 9, 10, he finds a reference to believing 
Jews as distinguished from unbelieving Jews, not to Gentile believers as con- 
trasted with Jewish unbelievers. He thus finds this verse according with his 
view as to the persons to whom the Epistle was addressed. ]. 


XVII. 
Vv. i! 1-25. 


1. In the first two of these verses a more general exhortation is given, which 
is followed by more special ones having reference to various relations in life. 
The general exhortation may perhaps be regarded as forming a transitional 
passage which, in a certain sense, closes the preceding paragraph, and, in a 
certain sense, opens the following one. Ver. 11, in its bidding to abstain from 
fleshly lusts, is in the line of ver. 1, laying aside all evil, ete. Ver. 12, on the 
other hand, in its reference to seemly behavior in their Christian living, sug- 
gests that which lies at the foundation of all the exhortations which follow, and 
which bear upon right and fitting conduct in several spheres or relationships of 
human life. There is, however, an independent element in these verses, as is 
shown by the special mention of the relation of the believers to the heathen 
among whom they lived, and the influence which their conduct might have upon 
these heathen. —2. The exhortation of these two verses is based, in a certain 
measure, upon the fact that the readers are πάροικοι and παρεπίδημοι, These two 
words seem to be used here, instead of the one or the other alone, for the sake of 
expressing the idea common to both with greater emphasis. The readers were 
strangers and sojourners in the world. They were living as such among the 
Gentiles who surrounded them, and who were the citizens of the world, at 
home in it and having its spirit. They should for this reason lay aside all evil, 
and abstain from fleshly desires (those desires which arise from the sinful and 
evil element in man), and should act in the way which befitted the new life 
upon which they had entered. — αἴτενες may be a causal word, since they ; or it 
may be used here as designating these desires as belonging to the class of things 
which war against the soul. —3. The participle ἔχοντες, in its grammatical con- 
struction, belongs to the subject of ἀπέχεσθαι, and should be in the accusative 
case. It is placed in the nominative to give the thought greater prominence and 
emphasis. The adjective xaAv is predicative, as Huther also says; and the word 
ἀναστροφῆν refers to the whole manner of life. καλῆν seems to mean good, in the 
sense of fair, beautiful, honorable, seemly,—such as would become Christian 
believers who realized that their home was in heaven. The end in view of this 
seemly behavior, as related to the heathen around them, was to be, that, in the 
very matter (ἐν ᾧ) in which these heathen were wont to speak against the readers 
as evil-doers, they might, by observing their good works, be led to glorify God. 
As Canon Cook says, ‘‘ Christians were specially attacked by Gentiles, generally 
at the instigation of Jews, on political grounds, as enemies of the state (comp. 
Acts xvii. 6, 7); on religious grounds, as atheists, i.e., rejecting the objects of 
heathen worship; on ethical grounds, as introducing unlawful customs, and, 
as it was believed, abominable impurity’’ (Acts xvi. 10). The thought of the 
apostle seems to be, that in the very things which characterized the Christians 
as turning aside from the heathen around them, and which led to charges against 
them as evil-doers or malefactors, they should so conduct themselves, — living 
in the true Christian, seemly manner, and abstaining from all fleshly desires, — 
that the heathen themselves, being eye-witnesses, spectators, of their good 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 741 


works, would be influenced to give glory to God. By the power of their life 
they would thus turn the hearts of the heathen. The day of visitation is to be 
explained of the time when God’s mercy should be brought to them. 

4. With ver. 13 begins the series of exhortations having reference to vari- 
ous relations in life, —those of subjects of civil government to their rulers, 
servants to their masters, wives to their husbands, ete. It can scarcely be 
doubted, that these exhortations are suggested here as a part of the seemly 
behavior of the Christian believers in the presence and midst of their heathen 
surroundings and enemies. The same liability or tendency on the part of Chris- 
tians, by reason of the doctrine of their equality in Christ and before God, to 
disregard the obligations of civil or family law, which we observe as we read the 
letters of Paul, may not improbably be seen here. The similarity of the exhor- 
tations given in these verses to those which Paul gives in the Epistles to the 
Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, is quite noticeable,—the language even 
corresponding in considerable measure with that of Paul,—and by reason of 
this fact the reader may be referred to the annotations on the passages in those 
Epistles, a few points only being specially mentioned here. —5. The word κτίσει 
is peculiar to Peter, and it seems to be used in the classical sense of instituting 
or establishing something, — ordinance or institution. Paul speaks of the civil 
powers as ordained of God (Rom. xiii. 1). Peter here speaks of them as in the 
light of a human institution. Huther explains this word human as meaning, 
applying to human relations ; and in this way there is no difference between Paul 
and Peter. Keil and Hofmann have the same view. Alford, Grimm, and others 
regard the word as equivalent to instituted by men. According to this view, the 
expression of Peter is supposed to refer to government, etc., from the human 
side, an institution organized and maintained by men; while Paul’s expression 
evidently describes it from the side of its divine origin and authority. Either 

explanation of the word seems to be allowable. The argument presented by 
’ Huther and Keil, as connected with κτίζειν and its derivatives, as applied to God, 
not to man, is worthy of consideration, but is hardly decisive. —6. The explana- 
tion of διὰ κύριον given by Huther, ‘‘ because such is Christ’s will,” is doubtless 
correct.—7. Paul evidently refers to the higher magistrates, those possessing 
the power of condemning to death, but without special designations: Peter 
makes such designations, —of the king or Roman emperor, the governors of 
provinces. But it will be noticed that both Peter and Paul represent the magis- 
trates as appointed of God for the same purpose, — the punishment of evil-doers 
and the praise of those that do well. Peter adds, as connected with the thought 
of his Epistle and the circumstances of his readers, a sentence giving the ground 
of the exhortation, which borders closely upon the words of ver. 12. This fact 
shows what has been said above, that the verses beginning with ver. 13 grow 
out of vv. 11, 12.—8. Ver. 16 reminds us of the Pauline thought. The Chris- 
tian readers were free, but they were bondservants of God. They were to yield 
their obedience to the earthly powers as those who were in this condition. It 
was to be a free service rendered in submission to God’s will. They were to be 
conscious of their freedom as Christians, but were to limit the exercise of their 
freedom by their sense of obligation to obey God. They were thus not to use 
their freedom as a covering for wickedness, —as Huther says, seek to conceal 
their wickedness by boasting of their Christian freedom, — but through due sub- 
jection to the civil magistrates were, in this line as in others, to behave in a 
seemly way among the Gentiles. —9. Ver. 17 does not correspond precisely with 
Rom. xiii. 7, but we can scarcely fail to be reminded of that verse as we read the 


742 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


words of this one. Both verses suggest the idea of the obligation to render to 
each and all the respect and honor, etc., which are justly due to them. ([Kiihl 
seems to favor the view of Alford, Grimm, and others, with respect to ἀνθρωπίνῃ 
(ver. 13). He regards κύριον (ver. 13) as referring not to Christ, but to God, 
because of ver. 15a, and the connection of this verse with that verse, and the 
one which follows it. The words ὡς ἐλεύθεροι, x.7.A. (ver. 16), he would not 
connect immediately with ὑποτάγητε, as Huther does, but would join them 
with ver. 15, and would hold that there is a change of construction from the 
accusative case to the nominative, as in ver. 12 (comp. ver. 11).] 

10. Following upon the exhortation relative to the duty to civil magistrates, 
exhortations are given bearing upon social or family relations; and first, with 
regard to servants. Probably οἰκέται, though meaning domestic servants, as 
distinguished from δοῦλοι, slaves, is here used as equivalent to the latter word. 
The word φόβος is found in the Pauline exhortations addressed to slaves, —in 
Ephesians, with fear and trembling ; in Colossians, fearing the Lord. Here 
the word evidently does not have the peculiar sense of the compound phrase in 
Ephesians. Whether it means the fear of the Lord, is more open to question. 
On the whole, it seems more probable that it refers to that reverence for author- 
ity which belonged to the position of the slave as related to the master. The 
reference to the two kinds of masters is peculiar to Peter. The following 
verses show that the apostle felt that the special need of the exhortation existed 
in the case of those who had perverse or froward masters; but they may also be 
regarded, in connection with other allusions in the Epistle to sufferings and 
trials, as indicating that, among the evils which befell the readers for whom the 
Epistle was designed, a prominent one in the case of slaves was that which 
came from such masters. At this point, the thought turns aside from what we 
discover in similar passages in the Pauline writings, and the writer is apparently 
dealing with persons who were in a somewhat different condition of things. 
{Kiihl thinks that the word οἰκέται is used instead of δοῦλος, probably, because 
the apostle desired to turn the readers’ minds, from the beginning, to the 
household and family relationships. He regards ἐν πάντι φόβῳ as referring to 
the same thing as διὰ κύριον (ver. 13), and διὰ τὴν συνεΐδησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ; thus the fear 
of God.] 

11. The most simple explanation of χάρις (ver. 19) is that of Grimm, this 
wins for us God’s favor; which is also the explanation of Huther, except that 
he takes favor in the general sense, this causes favor. The word λύπας in the 
conditional clause seems to be used of the things which cause λύπη, and thus 
cause the persons experiencing them to be in the condition indicated by λυπη- 
θέντες of chap. i. ver. 6. ὑποφέρει, bears patiently ; πάσχων, when in the experience 
of suffering unjustly or undeservedly. —12. Ver. 21. εἰς τοῦτο refers to the patient 
endurance of suffering inflicted wrongfully. The call to the Christian life was 
peculiarly, in those days, a call which brought the person to whom it came into 
the experience of trials, persecutions, etc., and which summoned him to this 
experience as a test of faith, which, being met successfully, resulted in praise 
and honor and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ (i. 7). —13. Ὅτι gives the 
ground of εἰς τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε. The Christian is called to undergo, according to his 
measure, what Christ underwent. The suffering of Christ on behalf of His 
people is presented here, also, in the special light of an example which He left 
behind Him peculiarly for them (the ὑμὶν is in the position of emphasis), to 
the end that they should follow close upon His footsteps. By going through 
the experiences of suffering which they should be called to meet, the disciples 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 5 ot 750: 


of Christ would be brought into inward likeness to Himself; and, knowing this, 
He left behind Him the example of His own endurance for the purpose of 
accomplishing the desired result. —14. In vy. 22, 23, two points with respect 
to Christ are set forth, which correspond with what has been urged upon the 
servants: He did no wrong, and yet, when He suffered, He endured patiently. 
The first of these points is brought forward in the language of Isaiah, chap. liii. ; 
and the second one is so expressed, as Huther also says, as to show that the 
apostle’s mind was recalling and dwelling upon that chapter of the prophecy. — 
The object of παρεδίδου is probably His cause, or the decision in the case; more 
probably the former. —15. Ver. 24. This verse can hardly be regarded as alto- 
gether in the line of the two which precede it. The writer seems, rather, in his 
dwelling upon Isa. liii., to think of what Christ did and suffered for His followers, 
and to be so impressed by his thought of this as to lead him to present it before 
his readers as the source of all their Christian life. The thing which He did 
for us is expressed in the words, bore our sins in His own body upon the tree 
(as R. V. text reads); or, carried up our sins . . . to the tree (as R. V. marg. 
reads). This was the way in which He suffered on our behalf. The vicarious 
suffering and death of Christ are here plainly set forth; but precisely how His 
death provided the way for our forgiveness, and deliverance from the penalty 
of sin, can hardly be determined from this expression alone, without taking 
into account the many other passages of the N. T. which have a more or less 
immediate bearing upon the subject. —16. The end in view of Christ’s suffering 
for us in the manner indicated was, that we, having died to sins, might live to 
righteousness. The participle ἀπογενόμενοι is here used in the same sense as 
ἀποθνήσκειν, which Paul uses in a similar construction with the dative ἁμαρτίᾳ, 
Rom. vi. 2, — dying to sin, in the sense of completely terminating our relations 
to it.—17. Ver. 25 gives the ground of the preceding clause immediately; but, 
more remotely, that of the main thought of ver. 24 in its bearing upon the 
Christian readers. [Kthl holds that ἀνήνεγκεν of ver. 24 is to be understood as 
meaning carried up. Jesus carried up our sins upon the cross, and thus took 
them away from us. He regards this as made clear by the use of ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, 
instead of ἐπὶ τῷ Sb2.] 


ΧΕ 
CHAPTER III. 
Vv. 1-12. 


1. The exhortations addressed to wives and husbands are in the same line 
with those addressed to servants, and, like them, are connected with ver. 12 of 
the preceding chapter. The exhortation to wives is the same which we find in 
the Pauline Epistles; and in the Epistle to Titus, ii. 5, the same reason, substan- 
tially, is given which is urged here, though on the negative side, and with a more 
general reference: that the word of God be not blasphemed. Here the duty 
of subjection on the part of the wives is presented with reference to its 
effect upon the husbands, to the end that any of them who may be unbelievers 
may be won over to the Christian faith, and thus to reverence and obedience to 
the word of God. The exhortation to submission was especially needed by 
reason of the state of society at that period, and because of the possible influence 
of the doctrine of equality in the Christian life upon conduct in social and 
family relationships. — 2. καὶ εἶ, even if, implies that such cases were not common, 
and it is evident that the apostolic writers regarded marriage between believers 


744 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


and the heathen around them with disfavor. The ground of the exhortation 
here given is the same, only having the necessary limitations of the case, with 
that presented for all good conduct in ii. 12,—3. The words ἄνευ λόγου are some- 
what doubtful as to their meaning. R. V. and A. V. render them, without the 
word, and thus, apparently, make the sense of the clause to be: that they may 
be gained or won for the Christian life without the intervention or use of that 
word to which they refuse obedience. There is evidently a certain improbability 
in this explanation, arising from the fact that there is no article with λόγου. 
Though not decisive as an argument against this view, this fact is worthy of 
serious consideration; for the parallelism with τῷ λόγῳ, if this were the intended 
meaning, would seem to make the insertion of the article natural, if not neces- 
sary, in this case. Huther, Alford, De Wette, and others hold that the phrase 
means without word, and is equivalent to without preaching to them and exhort- 
ing them. Some have carried this so far as to make it mean absolute silence in 
the inatter, on the part of the wives; but this appears to be unnecessary. The 
view of Huther escapes the difficulty of the first-mentioned view, and yet, at 
the same time, it keeps the word λόγου in near relation to λόγῳ, On the whole, 
it seems to offer the best and simplest explanation. Canon Cook says that the 
preposition here used implies that the husbands had rejected the word. That 
they had rejected it, is evident from the sentence as a whole; but as ἄνευ λόγου 
qualifies the verb κεῤδηθήσονται, it seems necessary to view this phrase as refer- 
ring to the manner in which the husbands are to be won over — in a similar way 
to that in which διὰ τῆς ἀναστροφῆς is to be understood. —4. The participle 
ἐποπτεύσαντες, corresponding with the participle of the same verb in ii. 12, is to 
be explained in the same way. In the foundation meaning of the word, they 
are conceived of as being eye-witnesses of the pure and modest and becoming 
behavior of their wives. In describing this behavior the writer uses the expres- 
sion ἐν φόβῳ: it was to be in the sphere of φόβος, This word represents that 
reverential fear which, in the higher and more complete sense, is its signification 
oftentimes when it is applied to the Christian’s fear of God, and not the fear 
which involves terror or being afraid. Coupled with fear, R. V. and A. V. 
[Kiihl agrees with Huther respecting the expression ἄνευ λόγου (ver. 1). He 
affirms that it cannot refer to the word, as meaning the gospel, because there is 
no definite article, and says that it is added to give further emphasis to διὰ τῆς 
ἀναστροφῆς. He holds that φόβῳ (ver. 2) means fear of God, and not, as Huther 
says, a shrinking from every violation of duty towards the husband.] 

5. The words with regard to the adornment of the women correspond in 
some measure with those in 1 Tim. ii. 9 ff. The words used, however, are 
mainly different. The construction adopted by R. V., which supplies the word 
κόσμος before ἔστω, and also supplies a second ἔστω before ὁ κρυπτὸς, x.T.A., of 
ver. 4, is the simplest and best. The explanation of ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ, which is 
given by Huther, on the other hand, seems better than that of R. V., which 
supplies the word apparel after it. The meaning appears to be this: Let it 
(the adorning) be the hidden man of the heart in (which it abides and lives in, 
as it were) the imperishable region or element of a meek and quiet spirit. The 
adorning is the heart abiding in this condition of spirit. —6. Vv. 5, 6, give a 
reason for urging this exhortation, which is drawn from the example of the 
holy women of the O. T. history, of whom Sarah is especially mentioned, as 
being the wife of Abraham with whom the covenant was made and who was 
thus the father of all believers. —'7. The word ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι is, in all probability, 
to be connected with ἐγενήθητε, as Huther and R, Y. text take it, and not with 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 745 


ὑποτασούμεναι, as R. V. marg. suggests, —the latter word being too remote, con- 
sidering the peculiar character of the sentence. This word ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι is better 
regarded as equivalent to if you do good, than as indicating the evidence that 
they have become children of Sarah. The thought of the passage suggests as 
the meaning here: you are her children, if you do good, etc. πτόησιν is to be 
taken objectively; and it refers, no doubt, to the treatment which Christian 
women might have reason to fear, at times, on the part of their heathen hus- 
bands. —8. The exhortation to husbands is founded on the same general idea 
which we find in other passages on the same subject. The language used here, 
however, is mainly different from what we find elsewhere. The word συνοικοῦντες 
refers to the whole domestic life of husbands with their wives; κατὰ γνῶσιν in 
accordance with knowledge, intelligence, understanding; this phrase seems to 
be more definitely explained by the werds which follow: ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ, k.7.A.3 TO 
γυναικείῳ depends on συνοικοῦντες, as Huther also says; this seems to be the 
simplest construction, not only for the reason suggested by Huther, that συνοικ, 
requires a nearer definition, which is more readily found in a word expressed 
in the sentence than in one to be supplied, but also because the two clauses 
beginning with ὡς are most readily explained if the first one is connected with 
συνοικ., and the second with ἀπονέμοντες. If συγκληρονόμοις is the true reading,” 
this parallelism of the two participles, each with its ὡς clause, is even more 
probable than with ovyxAnpovouor; χάριτος ζωῆς, the grace of life, i.e., the gift of 
the Divine grace which consists in eternal life; εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς 
ὑμῶν: this denotes the end in view of the whole sentence. By the opposite 
course to that here urged upon them, the husbands would hinder the union 
with their wives in prayer, and thus the growth and development of religious 
life in themselves and their wives. —9. In the verses which follow the exhorta- 
tion to husbands, the thought passes to what is more general and comprehensive, 
the new passage forming a kind of conclusion to the hortatory verses from ii. 11 
to this point. Thus we have the expression τὸ τέλος, As Huther remarks, these 
verses (8 ff.) ‘‘deal with the relations of Christians towards each other, and 
towards those who are inimically disposed to them.’”’ In this way the connection 
of the passage with the thought of ii. 12 is made manifest. The several words 
of ver. 8 express the ideas of harmony, sympathy, love, humility, ete., which 
are the normal results of the Christian spirit, as believers live together and 
have relations to each other; those of ver. 9 suggest the thought of the ill-treat- 
ment which believers were likely to receive from those outside of their own 
number. These latter they should bless, in the way of kind words and actions, 
or more probably in the way of invoking blessings from God upon them, and 
this because, in their call to the Christian life, they were themselves called to 
the inheritance of blessing from God.—10. The quotation from Ps. xxxiy. 
serves the purpose of emphasizing the exhortation which immediately precedes, 
and seems to be selected because of two things: first, the turning away from 
evil action and evil speaking, to which it refers ; and, secondly, the suggestion 
contained in it of the Divine favor as resting upon those who thus turn away 
from evil and do good, and of the Divine wrath as falling upon those who do not 
thus turn. The thought in the passage from the Psalms is evidently more 
general in its meaning and reference than the single application which is here 
made of it. The passage serves, however, the purpose of impressing the 
thought here in mind upon the attention of the readers. This quoted passage 
also carries the thought easily forward to that which is introduced in ver. 18 
and what follows. [Kihl rejects the construction of ὧν ἔστω (ver. 3) which 


746 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


Huther favors, and supplies κόσμος as suggested in this note. He would also 
supply κόσμῳ with ἐν ὀφθάρτῳ. He would connect ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι (ver. 6) with 
ἐγενήθητε, but would not regard it, as Huther does, as showing the mark by 
which the women proved themselves children of Sarah; nor again as meaning, 
if you do good. He would take ἐγενήθητε as futurum exactum: whose children 
you will have become through the fact that you do good.] 


XIX. 
Vv. 13-22. 


1. This passage is evidently connected in thought with that which precedes, 
and is a more full drawing-out of the matter of right conduct in the midst of 
sufferings and persecutions at the hands of enemies and unbelievers. The 
attitude and behavior which should characterize the readers is presented more 
impressively, together with the encouragements for such behavior; and then 
the example of Christ is set forth as the greatest of all encouragements. No 
real harm, the apostle says to his readers, could befall any of them in their 
suffering for righteousness’ sake. —2, The word κακώσων probably means, do 
real harm or evil. The negative which is implied in this question is supported 
and confirmed by the words of the following verse, although these, according to 
the form of the sentence, are placed in contrast to the idea of κακώσων. ἀλλά is 
equivalent to on the contrary ; εἰ καὶ, if even, if it goes so far as, if it prove even 
to be the fact that, you suffer; πάσχοιτε refers to the suffering of persecution, 
ete., but is used, as we may believe, as purposely conveying a different idea 
from that which is intended to be set forth in κακώσων. The Christian may 
suffer in the πάσχειν sense, and yet be μακάριος. --- ὃ, The expression fear not 
their fear, is probably to be interpreted according to the view which takes φόβον 
objectively: do not be agitated by the fear which they excite. The words 
sanctify, ete., stand in contrast with this expression. The word sanctify 
conveys the idea of so holding Christ as Lord, in and before the mind, as to 
bring the man into the attitude of reverential awe before Him. With this 
sanctifying of Christ in their hearts, the believers should be ready, instead of 
being troubled, or in dread, because of their adversaries, to give an answer to 
every one who demanded a reason for the hope which was in them. This 
giving of an answer was, however, to be with meekness and fear, i.e., with that 
meekness which was becoming to Christians, and that reverential fear which 
we may fitly feel in making any claim in our relations of God. —4. The words 
having a good conscience (ver. 16), are best explained as connected with the 
leading thought, which is that of giving an answer, or making an apologetic 
defence; this answer was to be given while the person had a good conscience, 
a conscience void of offence, a consciousness of that right state of the life 
which would disarm the adversaries in their attacks. The good conscience 
thus corresponds, on the inward side, to the good manner of life, on the out- 
ward side. —5, The seventeenth verse (γάρ) gives the ground for the sixteenth. 
In this verse, and the sixteenth also, the thoughts suggested in ii. 12 are 
evidently in the writer’s mind, the emphasis on suffering evil being, however, 
somewhat greater here. The underlying thought of maintaining the good life 
in the midst of, and in spite of, evils which are experienced at the hands of 
unbelievers, is manifest throughout this entire passage, which had its beginning 
at ii. 12. The correspondence between the verses now immediately before 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. TAT 


us, and those commencing with ii. 19, where the application of what is con- 
tained in ii. 11, 12, is made to the special case of servants, will be noticed by 
every careful reader. —6. The case of Christ is again brought forward, as 
furnishing the great example, and as the encouraging and strengthening fact 
on the foundation of which their own action and attitude should find support. 
The special point made prominent with respect to Christ is, that He suffered as 
a righteous person in the way of, and because of, doing good. He suffered for 
the sins of men, Himself a righteous person taking the place of unrighteous 
persons, and to the end that He might bring those who had been unright- 
eous near to God. [Kiih] is disposed to take φόβον (ver. 14) in the subjective 
sense: do not fear with the fear of them, do not be afraid of them. He allows 
the possibility, however, of the other explanation. He agrees with Huther in 
regarding ἔχοντες (ver. 16) as not co-ordinate with ἕτοιμοι, but subordinate to 
it. He regards κρεῖττον (ver. 17) as meaning, not better, but, more powerful, 
stronger, in the sense of more profitable, or useful to an end in view. He 
thinks the reference is not to what the Christian gains for himself from the 
suffering, but to what is effected for ‘‘those who revile the Christian’s good 
manner of life’? (ver. 16). This he thinks is indicated as the true meaning of 
the verse by the γάρ, which connects it with ver. 16. There is, accordingly, a 
certain parallelism in thought here with ii. 12.] 

Up to this point the comparison with the case of Christ seems to be carried 
forward, but with ver. 18) the thought turns more exclusively to Christ’s own 
experience and work in connection with, and following upon His death. The 
immediate connection of the words of ver. 180 with the death of Christ, which 
is brought before the reader’s mind, in ver. 18a, in the expression: suffered for 
sins, would seem to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that these words refer to 
His experience as related to that event. He was put to death in the flesh, but 
made alive in the spirit. The parallelism of contrast in these two clauses 
shows that the phrases in the flesh and in the spirit must be interpreted accord- 
ing to the same principles. They refer thus to two divisions, as we might say, 
or rather aspects, of Christ's lifeand being. Quoad σάρξ, He was put to death; 
quoad πνεῦμα, He was made alive. In respect to the earthly and perishable 
side of His nature, according to which He was subject to the law of death, 
θανατωθεῖς is true of Him. In respect to the higher and imperishable side, on 
the other hand, the spiritual side, His experience as connected with His dying 
is described by the word ζωοποιηθείς, It is plain, therefore, that, in ver. 18), the 
starting-point for the two statements which it contains is the time of Christ’s 
death. It is evident also, that the limit of the thought in vy. 21, 22, which 
close this half paragraph, is the resurrection of Christ, His ascension, and His 
life at the right hand of God in heaven. A strong probability arises from these 
facts, that what is predicated of Him in the words which intervene between 
ver. 18) and vv. 21, 22, refers to what took place after, and not before, His 
death. If this be so, we find in this fact the first point which may bear upon 
the determination of the meaning of ver. 19. [Kiihl agrees mainly with Huther 
in respect to the words θανατωθεὶς σαρκί and ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι. He holds that in 
the latter expression the (wor. involves the idea of the receiving of the spiritual 
body. Christ did not continue a mere spirit, but He received at His resurrec- 
tion the σῶμα πνευματικόν, by means of which, as the organ of the πνεῦμα, He 
was thereafter in a condition to carry forward His activity with relation to men. 
Christ had a πνεῦμα which had in itself the capacity and power to be thus 
ζωοποιηθείς. 


748 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


4%. The words ἐν ᾧ of ver. 19 must of necessity, as it would seem, refer to 
πνεύματι. It was, then, in the sphere of the πνεῦμα part of Christ’s nature, and 
not in that of the σάρξ part, that what is mentioned in vv. 19, 20, was done by 
Him. This expression in itself, as thus explained, may not indeed be incon- 
sistent with a spiritual proclamation before the time of the incarnation, that 
is, in the days of Noah. But if what has been said above of the time of vv. 
19-22 is correct, the connection of ᾧ with πνεύματι here must exclude such an 
explanation of the meaning. —8. The participle πορευθείς may be determined 
in its meaning, so far as the probabilities of the case are concerned, by two 
considerations: first, by the indication which the word itself gives of an actual 
movement or going of the person himself who is mentioned —if a preaching 
through or in the person of another were intended, the verb ἐκήρυξεν would 
have been all that was either necessary or natural in the case; and secondly, by 
the evident meaning of the same participle in ver. 23, where a personal going 
of Christ Himself is alluded to. It would scarcely seem possible that, in a 
connected passage no longer than the one now under consideration, the same 
participial form of such a verb as this would be used in two different senses, 
without any explanation or suggestion of such difference in the form ‘of 
expression, or the surrounding words. This participle in ver. 19, accordingly, 
is to be understood —such, at least, are the linguistic and grammatical proba- 
bilities of the case — as referring to a personal going on the part of Christ, for 
the purpose of a personal proclamation. No such personal going, in the sense 
corresponding to His going into heaven, spoken of in ver. 22, took place before 
the incarnation. —9. The word ἐκήρυξεν indicates what Christ did. The prob- 
abilities as to its meaning may be seen from the following facts: (a) This word, 
which in itself has an indefinite meaning, to proclaim as a herald, without 
specifying the sort of proclamation, occurs in the N. T. about sixty times. 
Among all the instances of its occurrence, there is none in which the idea of a 
proclamation of judgment or condemnation is expressed. The word is used 
almost exclusively of preaching the gospel, and this is the case in every 
instance in which Christ stands either in the subjective or objective relation 
to the proclamation. The kindred words κῆρυξ and κῆρυγμα (at least, with the 
exception of two cases, where the preaching of Jonah is spoken of, on which 
see below) are used with reference to the making known of the gospel, or, 
in a single instance, 2 Pet. ii. 5, of righteousness. The probability as to 
the meaning of the verb in this case, as connected with usage, must therefore 
be regarded as overwhelmingly strong against any other signification than 
preaching the gospel. —(b) This probability is strengthened by the use of the 
verb εὐηγγελίσθη in iv. 6, provided that we are to consider that verse as having 
any close relation to this. —(c) It is also strengthened, in some measure, by 
the fact that the thought of Christ throughout all the remainder of the passage, 
vv. 18-22, is that of saving, and not of condemning men. 

10. The expression τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν is to be explained, as it would 
seem, by observing two points: first, the word πνεύμασιν is most naturally 
interpreted through its connection with πνεύματι of ver. 18, and that word 
suggests a contrast to σαρκί; it would seem, therefore, most reasonable to 
understand these spirits to be disembodied spirits, or spirits of those who had 
already met physical death; secondly, as there is no particle, such as viv, to 
indicate that the meaning is, spirits who are now in prison, and especially 
nothing to indicate that the writer means persons who were alive in this world 
at the time of the preaching, but whose spirits are now (at the time of his 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 149 


writing) in prison, it is most reasonable, not to say necessary, to believe that 
the condition of the persons as disembodied spirits, and the time of their 
imprisonment, are to be determined in accordance with the time of the verb; 
that is, they were already disembodied spirits at the time when Christ preached 
to them. As disembodied spirits in prison, they must have been in prison in 
the spirit-world, not in this world; and as having the gospel preached to them, 
they cannot as yet have been finally condemned. —11. The word ἀπειθῆσασιν is 
antecedent in point of time to ἐκῆρυξεν. It is claimed by some that it can only 
be immediately antecedent; and, therefore, that the time of the preaching must 
have been nearly coincident with the time of the disobedience. This claim 
may, however, be questioned or denied, with reference to the aorist participle 
when employed as descriptive of particular persons, and especially in a case 
like this, considering the defining of the time of the participle by πότε dre, 
«.7.4. But even if it be allowed, in case the participle is merely descriptive, 
this fact will by no means decide the question, because the participle may mean 
although they were disobedient, and in this sense may undoubtedly be carried 
back far beyond the time of ἐκήρυξεν. Wiesinger, as mentioned by Huther, and 
some others, take the participle in this sense: although, etc. Moreover, the 
absence of the article with ἀπείθησασιν is not to be regarded as excluding the 
construction which makes it substantially equivalent to who were once disobe- 
dient, as R. V., A. V., and many commentators explain the word. See Huther’s 
remark in answer to Hofmann, in his note on ver. 19 (4). Affirmations with 
respect to the impossibility of the use of a participial construction by a N. T. 
writer, with a particular meaning, should be made only with the greatest caution, 
and especially in cases where the great majority of scholars have not found the 
alleged difficulty. As regards the omission of the article, even greater caution 
should be exhibited. As Winer remarks, ‘‘ Whether the article is to be used or 
omitted before the participle, depends sometimes on the subjective view of the 
writer.’ And Buttmann most fitly adds, ‘‘In the endeavor to lay down fixed 
laws respecting the use of the article, many a learned and laborious inquiry has 
already come to naught. A writer’s sovereign pleasure does not allow itself to 
be curtailed, whenever it seems good to him to depart even from a well-founded 
grammatical law.’’ A living writer has a living force within him, and at times 
he answers the grammarian, who would fetter him with never-yielding rules, 
as Paul answered the Jews: I am not under bondage to the letter, but in the 
freedom of the spirit. —12. The close connection of ποτε ὅτε, shows that these 
two words together define the time, and the position of ποτὲ shows that the 
fact or thing whose time is thus defined is that which is indicated by ἀπείθησασιν, 
and not that indicated by ἐκήρυξεν. ---18, The ὅτε clause involves the statement 
that the men who are alluded to lived, and also were disobedient, in the time of 
Noah, and before the flood came. They sinned during the period when God 
was, in that age, waiting with long-suffering. 

The examination of this passage which is thus set forth is purely exegetical, 
and is connected wholly with the natural meaning of the words, and their 
relation to the sentences and the paragraph. The purpose of these notes is 
exegetical, not doctrinal. If the suggestions offered are well-founded, they 
show that, with respect to every word and phrase, the probability of the case 
favors the interpretation of the passage, which makes it declare, that, after His 
death and before His resurrection, Christ went to the place where the persons 
mentioned were in their disembodied spiritual state, and there preached the 
gospel to these persons, i.e., the persons who were disobedient in the time of 


750 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


Noah, when, etc. It is to be observed, that the passage does not extend the 
statement beyond the case of these particular persons. That it suggests the pos- 
sibility of such an extension of the Divine grace, is the most that can be affirmed. 

The view of this passage, other than that above given, which meets the least 
difficulties as connected with the several probabilities mentioned, is that which 
holds to the above explanation in all particulars, except with reference to 
éxnovéev; but makes this verb contain the idea of a praedicatio damnatoria, a 
proclamation by Christ to these spirits in prison of their coming final condem- 
nation. It is claimed, on behalf of this view, that the verb κηρύσσειν is, in itself, 
a verb of indefinite meaning in regard to such a point as this, that it conveys 
simply the idea of proclaiming as by a herald, and that the character of the 
proclamation must be determined by the context. It is also claimed, that in 
some passages in the N. T. there are indications of the designed application 
of this idea of proclamation (expressed by this verb, or the kindred nouns) to 
threatened punishment. Thus Jonah’s «ypvyua is spoken of in Matt. xii. 41, 
Luke xi. 32; and in 2 Tim. iv. 2, the words ἔλεγξον and ἐπιτίμησον are added to 
κήρυξον, showing that a part of the proclamation was of this character. It is 
to be observed, however, that the passages in Matthew and Luke do not refer to 
Christ’s preaching; and that Jonah’s proclamation was, as the sequel showed, 
and also these verses themselves indicate, with a view to repentance; and in the 
case of 2 Timothy, the rebuking, etc., is only a part of the gospel preaching, 
subordinate to the end of securing the salvation of those to whom it is addressed. 
As stated above, wherever Christ is either the subject or the object of the verb 
κηρῦσσειν, in the N. T., the verb is substantially equivalent to εὐαγγελίζειν, This 
fact seems to the writer of this note to determine the probability of its meaning 
in the present instance, and to exclude the idea of a praedicatio damnatoria. 

The view of the passage which makes it refer to a preaching of Christ, in 
and through the person of Noah, before the flood, or to ‘‘a gracious activity 
on the part of the pre-incarnate Christ, a preaching in the form of the Divine 
warnings of.the time, the spectacle of the building of the ark, etc.,’’ encounters 
al! the improbabilities and difficulties mentioned. The only grammatical or 
linguistic point which has been held to be decisive in favor of this view, is that 
connected with the aorist participle ἀπειθήσασιν, which has been already alluded 
to in the earlier part of this note. The decisiveness of this point is not admitted 
by the great majority of interpreters. The position taken by the advocates of 
this view, in general, is, so far as the sentence in itself is concerned, that which 
makes the reference to a preaching in the time of Noah possible, rather than 
necessary, the point mentioned with respect to the aorist participle not being 
insisted upon. 

The discussion of the passage thus far has dealt with the words and phrases 
of the passage itself. There are considerations derived from the context, or the 
New Testament elsewhere, which have a bearing on the question which is pre- 
sented by ver. 19, and which ought to be candidly weighed before coming to a 
decision. The first of these is the fact, that an allusion to a preaching of Christ 
to these persons, long after their death, seems quite remote from the direct line 
of thought in the context. With regard to this point, the following remarks 
may be made: (a) that such remoteness, it must be admitted, impresses the 
mind of the reader at the first view of the passage; (>) that on any other expla- 
nation of the passage, however, somewhat of the same remoteness is evident. 
The real difficulty in the case is to explain how the writer is led to introduce 
here any allusion to Noah, the flood, the men of that age, and the subject of 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. tol 


baptism as antitypical of the flood. It seems strange to find the words of vv. 
19-21 connected with the thought of ver. 18a, and what precedes ver. 18. If 
we can account for the allusion to Noah’s time, etc., we may perhaps as easily 
account for the reference to a preaching to the persons of that age after Christ’s 
death, as for a similar reference to a preaching before Noah’s death. The 
attempts to explain the allusion to this matter by those who hold that the 
preaching followed Christ’s death, have been as successful, to say the least, as 
those of the interpreters who hold the other view. Compare, for example, what 
is said as to this point by Alford, on the one side, and by the writer (Professor 
Salmond) in Schaff’s Pop. Comm. on the other. — The second of the considera- 
tions drawn from outside of the passage is connected with the general indications 
of the N. T. as to the question whether the offer of salvation or the proclama- 
tion of the gospel is made to men after death. With respect to this point, the 
writer of this note would say: (a) that, in his judgment, the general impression 
produced upon the mind of the candid reader of the N. T. is, that the apostolic 
writers and Christ Himself do not continue the offer of salvation beyond the 
present life; (b) that they lay an emphasis, at times, on the present life as 
the period for securing salvation, or on death as the limit, which is most easily 
explained if we hold that such was their teaching; (c) that the few passages 
(leaving the present one, as being here under discussion, out of view) in which 
the opportunity for recovery after death may be suggested as a possibility, can 
be satisfactorily explained without making them convey this idea, and that, not 
improbably, they should be thus explained; the candid scholar, however, will, in 
this case as in all others, carefully and justly estimate the force of all passages, 
on whichever side of the question they may seem to give their evidence; (d) that 
the absence of any definite and full unfolding of the condition of things in the 
period following death, which, at least so far as details are concerned, is notice- 
able throughout the New Testament, may have its proper weight in determining 
our view of doubtful passages; and that the absence of allusions to the interme- 
diate state between death and the last judgment may also be justly taken into 
consideration; (e) that there may have been reasons in the Divine mind, for the 
presentation of the gospel after death to those persons who lived in the time of 
the flood, which are unknown to us, and which did not, and do not, exist in the 
case of other persons; and that an exception to the general law, made in their 
case, does not necessarily prevent the existence of such a generai law for all 
other men, which places the limit of the opportunity for salvation at death; 
(f) that the possible hint of a future opportunity for some other men beyond 
the particular class mentioned, which this verse may be supposed to suggest, 
and which can hardly be denied as a possibility, if the preaching was to the 
spirits in prison after Christ’s death, must be most carefully compared with and 
adjusted by other passages, which seem more or less distinctly to declare the 
opposite, before any doctrine as to such opportunity is accepted or believed by 
the New-Testament interpreter because of the statement of this passage. These 
points must all be fairly and fully considered in estimating the force of the gen- 
eral teaching of the N. T. as bearing against that interpretation of ver. 19 which 
makes it mean, that Christ preached to the departed spirits of the men of Noah's 
time after His own death. — A third point, connected with what is outside of the 
present context, is the fact that in 2 Pet. ii.5, Noah is spoken of as a preacher 
of righteousness (κήρυκα δικαιοσύνης), in connection with a statement as to the 
bringing of the flood upon the ungodly; and a somewhat kindred idea, though 
without the word κῆρυξ, is presented in Heb. xi. 7. If the authorship of 2 Peter 


Ν 


152 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


by the apostle is to be admitted, the allusion in that Epistle to Noah as a 
preacher, and that, too, in a passage having some similarity to the present one, 
may possibly serve to indicate what he intended to say here; and even if the 
Petrine authorship of the second Epistle is rejected, the two passages in 
Hebrews and 2 Peter may show something of the habit of thought, in this 
regard, of the earliest Christian writers. This argument must not be pressed 
beyond the limits of its proper force. The same writer does not always follow 
the same line of thinking in such allusions. What his sentence legitimately 
means is far more indicative of his present thought, than what he says else- 
where and at another time. And especially is it true that one writer may 
deviate, in such a matter, from the forms of expression of other writers. 

The passage, it must be confessed, is one beset with difficulties, and involved 
to some extent in obscurity. It becomes those who deal with it in the matter 
of doctrinal statements, or doctrinal controversies and questionings, to approach 
it and study it with the calm, unprejudiced, teachable, and peaceable spirit of 
the most candid and reverential exegetical scholar. 

[Kiih] holds that the connection of the words shows the reference of ἐν ᾧ (ver. 
19), to be only to πνεύματι. The apostle accordingly says that Christ went ἐν 
πνεύματι, and not ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι, to the doing of what is indicated by ἐκήρυξεν, 
«.7.A. As Christ, when He was in the condition described by wor. πν., was no 
longer ἐν πνεύματι, but ἐν σώματι πνευματικῷ, and as He was, while yet on earth, 
not ἐν πν., but ἐν σαρκί, the time referred to in this expression must be the time 
between His death and His resurrection. If this position is correct, the refer- 
ence to a preaching through Noah, or in Noah’s time, is excluded by the words 
themselves. — With respect to the spirits in prison, Kuhl holds that the phrase 
describes the present condition of the spirits at the time of the preaching, 
φυλακῇ referring to Hades. He differs slightly from Huther, in that he regards 
it as impossible to decide whether the reference is to the whole kingdom of the 
dead, or to that part of it which serves as the abode for the souls of the ungodly 
until the day of judgment. If iv. 6 is connected with this passage, he thinks 
the reference 15 to the former. — He regards πορευθείς as indicating a real, as it 
were, spatial, going. — The verb κηρύσσειν is here, he says, as everywhere in the 
N. T., the technical expression for that proclamation of the gospel which offers 
salvation; and thus he regards the end in view of the proclamation as being the 
same with that of the preaching of the gospel on earth, —namely, to present 
the offer of salvation to those spirits. 

The view which holds that the preaching was a praedicatio damnatoria, 
he declares to be wholly arbitrary, and apparently connected with an idea of 
the passage, which is contrary to the true one,—namely, that the prominent 
thought of the verses is that of judgment, whereas it is, in fact, that of the 
blessed results of Christ’s death, and of the Messianic salvation. In connection 
with the past tense of the verb ἐκήρυξεν, and the past participle πορευθεῖς, he 
holds that the participle ἀπειθήῆσασιν with ποτέ must be pluperfect in sense, and 
that the meaning must be, he preached to the spirits which had been formerly 
disobedient, etc., and not, he preached to them when they were, etc.; with the 
latter idea, the writer would have joined ποτέ with ἐκήρυξεν. ---- As the result of 
his exegesis of the passage, Kiihl holds: (a) that Christ, as πνεῦμα, went to 
Hades, and preached there to the spirits; (Ὁ) that the time of His thus going 
and preaching was between His death and His resurrection; (c) that the 
purpose of His preaching was to offer salvation to all the spirits, without 
exception. ‘That all the spirits are meant by the apostle’s words, he regards as 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ΡΕΤΕΒ. 753 


indicated by the absence of the article before ἀπειθῆσασιν,. The article, he 
thinks, would have been necessary if the writer had meant only the disobedi- 
ent ones of Noah’s time. The true meaning is, as he holds: He preached to 
the spirits in prison, to such He preached as had been disobedient, ete. The _ 
reference is, accordingly, to all, with a certain special designation of the men 
of Noah’s time. This special designation he explains in connection with the 
fact that the contemporaries of Noah are viewed in the N. T. (comp. Matt. 
xxiv. 37f., Luke xvii. 26f.) as typical of mankind, as fallen deeply under the 
power of sin. The participle ἀπειθήσασιν has, he thinks, a certain special 
emphasis: to the spirits, etc., yea, even to such as, etc.] 

14, The remark of Huther with respect to ver. 20 is worthy of special notice, 
and is in accordance with what is undoubtedly the fact in the case, namely, that 
‘*the stress is laid, not so much on the judgment which overtook unbelievers in 
the flood, as on the deliverance of the few.’? The whole passage is illustrative 
of the statement that Christ suffered for sins, that He might bring men to God; 
_in other words, of His work to the end of salvation. —15. The view which 
Huther takes of the preposition διά as being instrumental, rather than local, is 
probably correct. The few who entered into the ark were borne safely on by 
the water, and thus, in a certain sense, were saved by means of water. This is 
indicated by the statement of the next verse, which presents the idea of water 
(in connection with baptism) as saving us. The presentation of the water of 
baptism as the antitype of the water of the flood, must be regarded as a com- 
parison or antitypical correspondence which reaches, as it were, the limits of the 
figurative; and a part of the special difficulty and obscurity of this whole pas- 
sage — not to say, the very centre of it—is to be found here. The point of the 
comparison would seem to be connected with the fact that the water bearing up 
the ark was the means of saving Noah and his family. In a similar way, water, 
as the means by which baptism takes place, is also the the means by which the 
Christian is, as it were, borne safely into his Christian life and salvation. That 
the water, in the second case, is not the primary means or the direct cause of the 
salvation, as also it was not in the first case, is proved by the words which 
follow, which words show that the actual saving element of Christian baptism 
is not found in the water, but in the state of the mind towards God. It was the 
entrance into the ark which was the salvation of Noah’s family, and it is union 
of heart with God which is the salvation of the believer. The expression, not 
the putting away of the filth of the flesh, indicates that what the writer has in 
mind is not what water, in itself, can accomplish. 

16. The question as to the meaning of ἐπερώτημα is one which cannot be 
answered with confidence. On the whole, it seems to the writer of this note, 
that the word question most probably represents the meaning of the Greek 
word. This is confessedly the meaning in classical Greek, and appears to be 
not inconsistent with the general thought of the sentences. The preposition εἰς, 
being added to the noun, naturally carries the meaning to the point either of 
making it equivalent to question directed towards, or inquiry after. With 
either of these meanings, the genitive συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς is to be regarded as a 
subjective genitive. The idea of the whole sentence would seem, accordingly, 
to be this: that baptism, with its application of water, does not find its true sig- 
nificance in a cleansing of the outward man, but in the movement of the pure 
inner man towards God, Whether this movement is represented as a question- 
ing of the soul directed towards God, or an inquiry and seeking of the soul after 
Him — in either case, the same general condition of the soul is indicated. Per- 


154 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


haps inquiry after is the most simple and best rendering, as corresponding with 
ἐπερωτᾶν εἰς. The objection urged by Huther, that the idea is thus incomplete, 
inasmuch as the contents of the question or request are not stated, is not one of 
serious importance, because the reader, with either of these two nearly-allied 
meanings of ἐπερώτημα, will readily understand what movement of the soul is in 
the writer’s thought. —17. The phrase δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως is best connected with σώζει. 
Baptism, in the sense indicated, saves the believer by means of the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ is referred to here, apparently, for 
two reasons: first, because this great fact is the ground on which the results of 
His death are secured, and the life of the Christian in union with God is carried 
forward in its development; and, secondly, because the author has the desire to 
set forth the facts with regard to Christ’s own experience, from His suffering 
of death for sin to His exaltation at the right hand of God. [Kiihl agrees with 
Huther in regarding διά of ver. 20, as instrumental. — He holds that by the 
words ἐπερώτημα, k.T.A. (ver. 21), baptism is described as a request addressed to 
God, for power and strengthening to the end of ἀγαθοποιεῖν, on the ground of 
which ἀγαθ, we can have a good conscience. The connection of the thought 
of the good conscience with good action, which is suggested in ver. 16, appears 
in another form here, even though there may be no immediate connection 
between the two verses. — He agrees with Huther in connecting δ ἀναστάσεως 
with σώζει, ; 


ake 
CHAPTER IV. 
Vv. 1-6. 


1. These verses contain a new exhortation in the line of what precedes, and 
one which takes up the thought of Christ’s suffering, as set forth in iii. 18. In 
this passage, οὖν evidently connects the new exhortation with the reference to 
Christ’s death, according to the flesh; σαρκί is the dative of reference: so far 
forth as the σάρξ is concerned; ὁπλίσασθε is used because the thought is of 
defence against the assaults of persecution, etc.; ἔννοιαν is perhaps best trans- 
lated by thought, with the sense as given by Huther: ‘‘they should not refuse 
the thought of, like Him, suffering according to the flesh,’’ but there is some 
reason to believe that the word may mean mind, in the sense of disposition of 
mind. Alford holds that it means intent or resolution, and appeals to Eur. Hel. 
1012, and Isocr. p. 112d; ὁ παθῶν, «.7.A., seems to have a certain reference to 
the first words of ver. 1, but not to be limited, in its application, to Christ; these 
words appear, rather, to be an encouragement to the readers to be ready to suffer, 
by reason of the thought that the result of such suffering in the course of true 
Christian living is a ceasing of subjection to the power of sin. The believer 
ceases from his connection with sin, after a kindred manner to that in which 
Christ ceased from His (widely different) relation to it. —2. The phrase εἰς τὸ 
μηκέτι, K.7.A., Of Ver. 2, is, no doubt, rightly explained by Huther as connected 
with ὁπλίσασθε,. It expresses the end in view of the exhortation. If the readers 
armed themselves with the same thought, as related to sufferings in the right- 
eous Christian life, which was in Christ, they would cease to live in accordance 
with, as governed by the rule of, the lusts of men, and would be governed by 
the will of God. The ἐπιθυμίαι here referred to are evidently the unholy desires 
of men apart from God, and especially those which characterized the lives of 
the heathen, by whom the readers were surrounded, and which are indicated in 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 755 


ver. 3. —3. The contrast of the time past to the remaining time shows clearly 
the correctness of Huther’s remark, that σαρκί denotes here, as in ver. 1, the 
earthly human nature, to which the mortal body belongs. The third verse is 
introduced as a ground or reason for the μηκέτι βιῶσαι, k.7.A. It would seem to 
indicate that a considerable proportion, at least, of the readers had been 
heathen before their conversion. [Kihl agrees with Huther that ἔννοιαν (ver. 1) 
means thought. He regards πέπαυται as in the middle voice: he has ceased 
from sin. The idea of Peter, as here expressed, does not correspond with that 
of Paul in Rom. vi.; the thought of Paul being that of a dying in the spiritual 
sense, while that of Peter is of suffering according to the flesh. The word 
παθών, in both parts of the verse, is used with reference to outward sufferings. 
— Kuhl thinks the expression to have wrought the will of the Gentiles (ver. 3 
is an indication that before their conversion, the readers were not Gentiles, but 
Jews. It was the Jews only who were prepared by special Divine revelations, 
and bound thereby to live, not according to human desires, but to the Divine 
will. The word ἀθέμιτος, he regards, also, as appropriate only for Jews. ] 

4, The words ἐν ᾧ of ver. 4 are translated by A. V. and R. V. by wherein, 
and if this may be regarded as meaning: their astonishment that you do not go 
on in the same course, and with a similar excess of riot with themselves, arises 
and moves in the sphere of this fact, —this explanation may be the best one. 
The sense would thus approach closely towards Huther’s explanation, who 
makes ἐν « mean: because, or on account of the fact that, you have thus 
walked, they are surprised that, etc. If the English versions refer by wherein 
to the former heathen life of revellings, etc., and make it limit the words, run 
not to the same excess of riot, the meaning given by them is less in accordance 
with the sentence than that given by making ἐν 6 equivalent to because. The 
genitive absolute μὴ συντρεχόντων, x.7.A., is causal. —5. Ver. 5 points to the 
judgment awaiting these heathen revilers, as a thing which, when under per- 
secution, under the injury coming from being defamed, etc., the Christian 
readers should bear in mind. The enemy was not always to triumph, or to 
have power against them: God was their avenger, their support, and the 
mighty power on their side; and the day of judgment was to come. — The 
phrase τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι indicates the nearness of the judgment, according to its 
most natural interpretation, and may thus have a bearing upon the question as 
to Peter’s view with regard to the parousia. [Kiihl agrees with Huther that 
ἐν (ver. 4) is to be understood as meaning because. — He holds that νεκροί of 
ver. 5 refers to all the dead, and that the apostle has in mind, and makes prom- 
inent, the universality of the judgment. ] 

6. The living and dead mentioned in ver. 5 are thus described, apparently, 
with reference to the matter and time of the judgment; and thus the meaning 
is, that the Lord will judge all, whether they be living at the time of judgment, 
or whether they have died before that time. There is no necessary limitation 
of the expression to the revilers, etc., here spoken of; but from the general 
character of the words, the thought suggested is, that, as the judgment is to be 
passed upon all, whether living or dead, it will come upon these men. —7. Ver. 
6 is introduced by yap, as a ground of what is said in ver. 5. It is evident that 
in ver. 6 the case of the νεκροί is made the subject of thought, the ζῶντες being 
no longerin mind. The statement of the verse is, that something was done 
or occurred to the dead to the end of their being judged, and thus they are 
brought under the κρῖναι of the preceding verse. The thing which was thus 
done is set forth in the word εὐηγγελίσθη, and the purpose of this verb is 


756 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 

presented in the iva clause. The determination of the writer’s meaning must 
depend, or partly depend, on the true explanation of this verb, as affected by 
what follows the final particle. It will be noticed that the verb is in the aorist 
tense. It must therefore, as it would seem, refer to a time past, either as 
related to the time of writing the sentence, or as related to the time of judg- 
ment. The fact that vexpovc of ver. 5 is used of those who shall be dead at the 
time of the judgment may favor the latter reference; but the natural under- 
standing of a past tense, which sets forth a fact, as indicating a fact which 
is already past when the word is written, points most strongly to the former 
reference. When we add to the fact of this natural understanding of the 
tense, the striking presentation of a certain class of persons, belonging to the 
O. T. history, in the earlier part of the passage which closes with the present 
verse, —namely, the men who lived just before the flood, iii. 19,—the case 
becomes much stronger for this first view of the meaning. There seem, 
therefore, to be weighty reasons to believe that, in this verse, the apostle is 
speaking again of those whom he has mentioned already, and that he alludes 
to the same thing in εὐηγγελίσθη to which he alluded in ἐκήρυξεν in iii. 19, If 
this is correct, the verb εὐηγγ. determines the meaning of the verb ἐκήρυξεν, and 
the time of the act indicated by both is one and the same.—8. The word 
νεκροῖς of ver. 6 is, in its form, as unlimited as νεκρούς of-ver. 5; but it does not 
seem to follow from this necessarily, that it is actually, according to the writer’s 
thought,\as unlimited in its application. The expression, in both cases, is not 
οἱ νεκροί, but νεκροί, and thus the persons referred to are described according to 
the peculiarity of their condition, rather than as the whole of aclass. In such 
a form of expression, the whole class may be designated, or it may not be: 
the decision will depend on the suggestions of the sentence or the context. In 
ver. 5 all the indications of the sentence point to the word as denoting the 
whole company of the dead, but in ver. 6 the suggestions already made may 
show that a more special reference is intended. —It ought to be remarked, 
however, that, while this word in ver. 6 may refer to a special section of the 
dead, it is contrary to all the indications of the passage to make.it mean, in 
the one verse, persons who are dead in a different sense from that in which the 
persons mentioned in the other verse are dead, — ver. 6 meaning the spiritually 
dead, and ver. 5 the physically dead. —9. The reader should observe that, in the 
éva clause, the first verb is in the aorist tense, and the second in the present. 
This fact is significant, and seems to show that the words iva κριθῶσιν do not 
prove the preaching to have taken place before the death of the persons referred 
to. Rather does the form of the sentence in this regard indicate the correct- 
ness of Huther’s view of it: that while κριθῶσιν and ζῶσιν are grammatically 
co-ordinated, the former verb holds, in the thought, a subordinate position, 
and that the meaning of the clause is: in order that they, after the flesh, 
indeed, judged by death, may live according to the spirit. As Canon Cook 
says, the term κριθῶσιν ““ 15 evidently used with reference to their previous state, 
not to the time of the announcement.’’ He also says, ‘‘ The Greek makes a 
distinction between the two propositions: the former does not apply to the 
effect of the tidings, but to the condition of those who were addressed; the 
next proposition, but live, tells us what was the ultimate and perfect effect 
upon those who were prepared to receive it.’””»—10. The datives σαρκί and 
πνεύματι are to be explained as datives of reference: so far forth as the flesh, or 
the spirit, is concerned; as regards the flesh, or the spirit. The expressions 
κατὰ ἀνθρώπους, κατὰ θεόν, mean after the manner of men, God, in such a manner 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. hot 


as corresponds with the nature of man and the law of his being, —in such a 
manner as answers to the life of God and as He imparts His own life to men. 
[Kiihl holds that the special emphasis in ver. 6 is on νεκροῖς, This is clear, as 
he thinks, both from the repetition of this word, and from the καί. This καί 
points to the contrast to the ζῶντες, to whom also the gospel is preached; and as 
these ζῶντες are the same as those in ver. 5, the vexpoi in this verse must be the 
same with the vexpoi in ver. 5. All the dead are referred to here, as in the pre- 
vious verse, and thus the gospel, he thinks, is declared to be preached to all the 
dead. — The explanation of κριθῶσι and ζῶσι, and of the iva clause, in which 
these verbs are found, which is favored by Huther, is adopted by Kiihl. — The 
idea lying at the foundation of the thought of ver. 6, in its connection with 
ver. 5, is, as he thinks, that a judgment of the dead is to be thought of only in 
case the possibility of salvation is given them through the proclamation of the 
gospel. ] 

In the consideration of this whole passage from iii. 13 to iv. 6, it is impor- 
tant to keep in remembrance the fact, that the apostle has in mind not only an 
exhortation for his readers in the midst of persecutions and revilings, and an 
encouragement for them as connected with Christ’s experience and His work, 
but that he has also the desire to set forth the experience of Christ for its own 
sake, as connected with His glorification, and His work, in itself, as leading 
to the end of life and salvation. These two things are interwoven together 
throughout the passage, and the interpreter who does not bear this in mind is 
liable to misapprehension of the apostle’s thought.— The work of Christ 
is represented here, as it is everywhere in the N. T., as tending towards the 
salvation of men. He suffered, that they might be forgiven, and delivered 
from sin. He rose again, that the new life might be secured within them. He 
ascended to the right hand of God, exalted above the highest powers, that His 
people and His kingdom might be forever triumphant. The bearing of this 
upon the two difficult verses iii. 19 and iv. 6, whatever our final decision as 
to their meaning may be, will be carefully estimated by all who properly 
examine them as parts of this passage. 


ΟΣ ΤΙ 
Vv. 7-11. 


1. The seventh verse sets forth, in a brief and distinct statement, the near- 
ness of the end of all things. This statement seems to be suggested by the 
thought of the approaching judgment; and in this way the discourse passes on 
from what precedes to this new paragraph. The exhortations of this paragraph 
are directed, in the first place, towards that sober-mindedness, love to one an- 
other, etce., which are befitting in view of the nearness of the end, and secondly, 
to that devotion to the use of the peculiar gifts and duties belonging to each 
believer, as an individual, which may promote the glory of God, —a thing which 
also becomes the believer, especially as the time of the end draws near. — 2. The 
two verbs, σωφρονήσατε and νήῆψατε, are kindred in meaning: the former is ren- 
dered by R. V., be of sound mind ; the latter, be sober. Both verbs convey the 
idea of that sober and temperate condition of mind, which restrains and governs 
all undue passion, and abides in a serious thought of life, its duties and its mean- 
ing. The words εἰς προσευχάς, which designate the end in view of the verb νήψατε, 
bring before us the thought of that communion with God in prayer, which is so 


758 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


often presented in the N. T. as the very atmosphere of the Christian’s life. — 
8. The expression πρὸ πάντων is not to be regarded as setting love above prayer; 
for the comparison is not with prayer, but with sober-mindedness. Expressions 
of this character, we may believe, are not to be pressed to the absolute literal- 
ness and fulness of their meaning. They are used many times, no doubt, as 
indicating what the writer regards as most important to be urged in connection 
with some special point which he has in mind at the time, and occasionally even 
with a mere rhetorical earnestness. The love which he would urge them to 
have is intense, on the stretch, fervent; and he would press this upon them 
with special emphasis, because love covers a multitude of sins. The remark of 
Leighton on this verse probably gives the true idea of the meaning: “ Hatred 
stirs strife [the first words of the O. T. passage (Prov. x. 12) from which not 
improbably this verse is borrowed], aggravates, and makes the worst of all; but 
love covers, ete.; it delights not in undue disclosing of brethren’s failings, doth 
not eye them rigidly, nor expose them willingly to the eyes of others.’’ 

4. The exhortation to hospitality follows naturally upon that which urges to 
love, as this was one of the prominent forth-puttings of love at that period of 
the history of the Church. The expression ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ is really involved 
in the idea of g:Adgevor, —loving hospitality is without murmuring or complain- 
ing, an ungrudging gift of Christian brotherly love. 

5. The exhortations with respect to the χαρίσματα correspond closely, though 
much of the language used is different, with what is said by Paul in Rom. xii. 6 ff. 
These verses (10, 11) may indicate the true view respecting Peter’s language in 
such cases, —that it was possibly affected in some measure by his knowledge of 
what Paul had written, but that it was not borrowed from Paul, and that the 
thought was suggested by the needs of the readers for whom he wrote, by which 
he was himself impressed. — What Paul expresses in Romans and 1 Corinthians 
by the verb wepitw, —the distribution of the gifts according to the measure of the 
grace of God bestowed in each gift, —is here hinted at by Peter, apparently, in 
the word moixiAnc. —6. Peter specializes only two gifts, one in the line of the 
teacher’s or prophet’s office; the other, in that of the diaconate. With regard 
to the individual words of the eleventh verse, it may be observed, that λαλεὶ is a 
general word which may cover the utterances both of the διδάσκαλος and the 
προφήτης; that λόγια evidently here means words or utterances communicated by 
God, thus teachings and revelations; ἰσχύος means strength or ability (‘‘to the 
extent of one’s ability,’ Grimm), which is regarded as supplied in every case 
by God according to His own will; ἐν πᾶσιν means in all things, rather than in 
all persons, the reference being to the varied things suggested by the preceding 
words respecting the gifts; ᾧ, in the doxology, is to be understood as referring 
to God, as Huther and most recent commentators take it. The doxological 
passages in the N. T. almost universally refer to God, and here God is mani- 
festly the prominent subject of thought. Though it is evidently possible to 
refer the relative to ᾿Ιησοὺ Χριστοῦ, and this is the nearest name in the sentence, 
Christ is so entirely secondary in the sentence, the instrumental agent through 
whom the glory comes to God, that the ascription of glory to Him at the close 
of the whole paragraph is altogether improbable. [Kiihl, like Huther, connects 
the exhortation to sobriety and sound-mindedness, through the particle οὖν 
(ver. 7), with the thought of the nearness of the end. The participles and 
adjectives of the following clauses, he would regard as grammatically depend- 
ent on σωφρονήσατε καὶ νῆψατε, The turn of thought from ver. 8 to ver. 9 is 
from forgiving love to ministering and serving love. The word χάρισμα (ver. 10) 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. ἢ 759 


‘does not refer, he thinks, to extraordinary gifts, but to the capacity to use 
one’s ordinary gifts for the service of others, and the good of the church. — 
_ Inasmuch as the words διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (ver. 11) hold a subordinate position 
as related to the verb δοξάζηται, which contains the principal idea, Kiihl regards 
it as impossible to refer the doxology to Christ. ] 

\ 


ΌΧΙ 
Vv. 12-19. 


1. The apostle now passes to a further line of exhortation with respect to 
suffering under persecution, showing by this repeated reference, and the careful 
and solemn drawing-out of the matter, how largely this subject was occupying 
his mind. The introduction of the word ἀγαπητοί again at this place may be 
intended to give emphasis to the new presentation of this urgent request and 
demand. —2. The subject is opened by bidding the readers not to think it 
strange that they should meet with severe trials. The dative τῇ πυρώσει is a 
dative used with this verb, and seems to mean at or with reference to. The 
participle yevouevy is present, and indicates that the fiery trial is now happening, 
or coming upon them. The πύρωσις is evidently here used of the persecutions, 
etc., which, as a refiner’s fire, were designed of God to be for a proving or test- 
ing of their Christian character. —3. In contrast to such a thought of these 
trials as strange, they should, so far forth as (καθὸ) they participated in Christ’s 
sufferings by undergoing experiences of a similar character, rejoice in order 
that, etc.,—that is, they should be in that state of joy in their sharing of 
Christ’s sufferings which is the legitimate preparation for the joy hereafter, at 
the time of the revelation of His glory, in the participation in that glory. The 
participle ἀγαλλιώμενοι, with exultant joy, gives not only a characteristic of 
the heavenly rejoicing, but also therewith an incitement to the preparation 
for it.—4. Ver. 14 adds an encouragement to obey the exhortation, which is 
founded on the proof, which their suffering in the name of Christ gives, that 
they have the Divine Spirit resting upon them. The Divine Spirit is also called 
the Spirit of glory, as we may believe, because the apostle’s thought is of the 
glory of the future as the ground of the exultant joy of the future. The Spirit 
whose characteristic is glory, and who thus can give it, rests permanently upon 
suffering followers of Christ, and thus the joy of the future is assured, because 
the glorifying process is ever going forward towards its consummation at the 
end. —5. yap of ver. 15 is best taken with Alford, as giving the ground for 
the supplied thought: ‘‘I say, In the name of Christ,”’ for it is not of the suffer- 
ing indicated in ver. 15, but of that indicated in ver. 16, that the macarism can 
be uttered and the glory now and hereafter can be predicated. —6. The peculiar 
word ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος occurs nowhere else in the N. T., and seems somewhat 
strange as connected with such words as “thief” and “murderer.” The connec- 
tion apparently indicates such an interfering in the way of attempted oversight, 
ete., as would be likely to provoke hostility, and thus bring violent treatment 
from the other (heathen) party upon themselves. The word περιεργαζόμενοι, 
which Paul uses in 2 Thess. iii. 11, is a kindred word, and is nearly, though 
perhaps not precisely, equivalent in meaning. [Kihl regards the passage from 
ver. 12 to ver. 19 as a new section with which chap. v. is closely connected, 
and the suggestions in which refer to sufferings, etc., within the church, and 
occasioned by persons who were in the membership of the church. — He regards 


760 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


the use of the words ἐενίζεσθε and ξένου as indicating the early date of the 
Epistle, —a time when such experiences might be looked upon as strange or 
surprising. — He agrees with Huther in taking yap of ver. 15 as equivalent to 
that is to say, or namely, and not as a causal particle. ] 

7. The term χριστιανός occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only in Acts xi. 26, 
xxvi. 28. Whether it is here used as a mere designation of the believers as 
followers of Christ, or whether, on the other hand, the idea of scorn or con- 
tempt lies in the name as used by those outside of the church, may be ques- 
tioned. The verb which follows, let him not be ashamed, may indicate the 
latter. The second of the two imperatives, let him glorify God, indicates that 
he should praise God that he is thus permitted to suffer for the sake of Christ. 
The phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ may mean, in the sphere of this name of Chris- 
tian, or of the name of Christ. The ἐν, in either case, means in (in the sphere 
of) in the sense of on account of. —8. The particle ὅτε of ver. 17 introduces the 
reference to the judgment as the ground for not being ashamed, but for glorify- 
ing God. The word καιρός suggests the idea of the appointed time as already 
at hand; and the writer apparently conceives of the persecutions, ete., which 
serve the end of severely trying and testing the Christians, as the beginning of 
that judgment of God which is to be consummated at the parousia, and to 
result in the final condemnation of the ungodly. He thus takes into his thought 
the whole epoch of the parousia, if it may be so designated, including the calam- 
ities, etc., preceding it, as well as the parousia itself, and its attendant events. 
This passage furnishes strong evidence, therefore, that the writer regarded him- 
self and his readers as being already in the last times. —9. The preposition ἀπό 
conveys the idea of the moving of the judgment from its beginning-point, the 
house of God, towards the unchristian world. The same thought is presented 
in πρῶτον ἀφ’ ἡμῶν. --- The word τέλος means the final result, that which will be 
the issue of the judgment for the disobedient and unrighteous. — Μόλις, scarcely, 
apparently refers to the difficulty of passing the judgment. As Keil says, the 
believer is not free from sin before God, who tries the reins and hearts, but 
comes short of the glory of God, and cannot, therefore, base his salvation on 
his own good works and his own merits; but owes it only to the Divine grace, 
which forgives his sins. — ποῦ φανεῖται ; where will he appear ? i.e., he will not 
be able to appear at all as standing before God in the judgment. This question 
is equivalent to an emphatic negative, as frequently in the Pauline Epistles. — 
10. The omission of ὡς in ver. 19 before πιστῷ κτιστῇ, is in accordance with the 
best authorities, and the expression gains by means of it its best form. The 
readers are exhorted in the midst of their sufferings to commit their souls in 
well-doing to a faithful Creator. These sufferings are in accordance with the 
will of their Creator; and, as they trust in Him, Ie will be faithful to them in 
the fulfilment of His plan for their salvation. The phrase ἐν ἀγαθοποιίᾳ indicates 
the sphere within which their life and action should be, as they commit them- 
selves to the protection of God; and, being placed where it is at the end of the 
sentence, and of the whole section on the matter of suffering, it emphatically 
turns the thought again to the main idea of doing good, and not evil, and thus 
leaves the impression of this idea as the final impression on the reader’s mind. 
[Kihl thinks the words in this name may refer either to the name Christian or 
Christ, but is apparently inclined to favor the latter reference. — He regards the 
words where will he appear as indicating that the ungodly will, as Keil says, go 
away from the Divine judgment εἰς ἀπώλειαν. --- He connects καί, of ver. 19, with 
πώσχοντες, and not, as Huther does, with ὥστε, The latter construction is not 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 101 


found in the N.T., he says. He thinks the thought here presented is in the 
sphere of the earliest Christian teaching, wherein that which is specifically 
Christian sometimes, in a remarkable way, retires into the background. | 


XXIII. 
CHAPTER Υ. 
Vv. 1-7. 


1. There can be but little doubt that in ver. 1 the apostle addresses official 
elders. This is indicated both by the fact that he speaks of himself as συμπρεσβύ- 
τερος, a word which can hardly apply to age only, and by what he calls upon the 
persons addressed to do, and not to do, —to tend the flock of God as shepherds, 
and to exercise oversight; and, on the other hand, not to lord it over the charge 
committed to them. On the contrary, when he addresses the νεώτεροι in ver. 5, 
since there were no officials bearing this designation, he must mean the younger 
in years; and by πρεσβυτέροις, in the same verse, he must mean the elder in years. 
The change in the sense of πρεσβυτέροις from that of the same word in ver. 1 is 
far less improbable than the use of the adjective νεώτεροι to designate the 
younger ministry, or the church as contrasted with the elders. The word πρεσβύ- 
τερος, as employed in the N. T., has two meanings; the word νεώτερος but one. 
We should determine the signification of the word which has a double possi- 
bility of meaning, in a case like this, by the one which has only a single mean- 
ing.—2. The exhortation to the elders to do their work is founded, by the 
particle οὖν, on what goes before; possibly on the idea suggested by ἀγαθοποιίᾳ 
of iv. 19, possibly on this idea as being, in a sense, the basis of the whole 
thought from iii. 14 onward. —3. Peter calls himself a fellow-elder, as John, in 
the second and third Epistles, speaks of himself as the elder, because in the 
essential idea of oversight, and of the tending of the flock, he was in the same 
position with the elders. In one sense, as an apostle he was above them, and in 
the exercise of a higher function; but in another, they and he were substantially 
alike. We can hardly fail to be reminded, by the apostle’s exhortation here, of 
the bidding which Jesus gave to him after His resurrection, John xxi. 16.— 
4, That he was also a witness of the sufferings of Christ, is mentioned as a part 
of his likeness to the other elders. This word μαρτύς, according to the common 
use in the N. T., means rather a bearer of testimony than an eye-witness. As 
used by Peter respecting himself, however, we may believe that it carried within 
it to his own mind, and also to the minds of his first readers, the latter idea in 
connection with the former. He was one of those apostles to whom Jesus said, 
“* And ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.”’ 
— 5. The allusion to the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that shall be revealed, 
connects this passage with the closing part of chap. iv.; and this fact may indi- 
cate, that, in his exhortation to the elders to shepherd or tend the flock of God, 
he had in mind, as a thing of some prominence, the bringing them under the 
influence of thoughts such as those with the presentation of which the preced- 
ing chapter closes. |Kiihl regards the first words of ver. 1 as substantially 
equivalent to: presbyters among you, i.e., if there are such among you who are 
eldest in years. He finds here an indication that Peter thought it possible that 
in many of the churches there might be no presbyters, and thus an indication 
of the early date of the Epistle. — He regards the word μάρτυς as not referring 
to the fact, that, as an apostle, he had been an eye-witness of the sufferings of 


102 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


Christ, but only as meaning a witness, in the sense that he bore tes.imony of 
them. The emphasis in respect to the witnessing is found in the fact that he is 
. a participator in the sufferings. — He thinks the νεώτεροι here spoken of were a 
particular body, or class of young men, who were assigned to duties in subordi- 
nation to the elders (presbyters) ]. 

6. The participle ἐπισκοποῦντες is omitted by the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., 
but is accepted by Tischendorf, R. V., and most of the best recent commen- 
tators. If read, this verse becomes one among the several passages tending to 
prove that the two titles ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος belonged to the same office, 
and were, in this sense, equivalent to each other. —7. The proper discharge of 
the duty of the office of elder is set forth by means of three contrasts: the first, 
that it should be with willingness, and not by constraint: i.e., the elder should 
be moved by an inward impulse, and not by a compelling influence from outside 
of himself; the second, that it should be with the readiness and zeal of a warm- 
hearted soul (out of love to the thing itself, as Huther says), and not under the 
influence of base avariciousness (αἰσχροκερδῶς is strictly equivalent to αἰσχροῦ 
κέρδου χάριν, Tit. i. 11, which passage Huther refers to); the third, that it should 
be with the desire of inspiring and helping the members of the churches by the 
example of their own Christian living, and not in the way of exercising authority 
and being oppressive governors. The apostle thus carefully guards against the 
idea of an authoritative priesthood, lording it over the church. The elder is to 
be a shepherd, tending the flock with a loving oversight. He is to be moved by 
no desire of authority, but to be an example to those under his pastoral charge, 
and to be moved by the noblest and most unselfish impulses only to earnest 
effort and care. —The word κλήρων is explained as a plural correctly by Huther. 
It refers to the several congregations under the charge of the several elders. — 
8. Following the exhortation, we find the assurance of reward given to the 
elders. The reward is the δόξα, which is referred to in ver. 1. It is called here 
an amarantine crown. The adjective is explained by Huther and others as 
derived from the substantive ἀμάραντος, and thus as meaning strictly amaranth- 
ine. This flower was the unfading flower, and so the idea is that the crown 
or garland is to be unfading, —the glory, which is the crown, is to be endless. 
[Kiihl agrees with Huther as to the derivation and meaning of ἀμαράντινος, and 
also as to the relation of the genitive δόξης to στέφανον. --- The chief shepherd is 
Christ; under Him are the presbyters, as shepherds; the owner and lord of the 
flock is God.] 

9. The exhortation now passes to the younger Christians, and is to the end 
of a submissive demeanor; and thus, that they should exhibit the spirit of 
᾿ humility in their relation to those who were advanced in life beyond themselves. 
This idea of humility seems to pervade the whole passage. It manifests itself 
prominently in the μηδὲ κατωκυριεύοντες of ver. 3, in the ὑποτάγητε of ver. 5, and 
in the ταπεινοφροσύνην of the second exhortation in ver. 5. This uniting idea of 
humility may account, as Huther holds that it does, for the use of the adverb 
ὁμοίως, at the beginning of ver. 5. But this adverb may simply suggest, that, as 
the exhortation to fulfil appropriate duties has been given to one class, so now a 
similar exhortation to fulfil a certain other appropriate duty is given to another 
class. —10. The thought moves outward from individual classes to all, and 
the particle dé becomes thus nearly equivalent to the yea of R. V. The dative 
ἀλλήλοις seems, on the whole, to be explained satisfactorily as a dative of refer- 
ence after the expression τὴν ταπεινοφροσύνην ἐγκομβώσασθε; but the explanation 
favored by Huther, which connects the words πάντες δὲ ἀλλήλοις with the preced- 


/ 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 763 


ing sentence, and makes πάντες, like νεώτεροι, the subject of the verb ὑποτάγητε, 
is certainly a possible one, against which no serious objection can be urged. 
The suggestions made by Huther with reference to ἐγκομβώσασθε, are probably 
to be accepted, and the word is to be rendered as in R. V.: gird yourselves with 
humility, — bind it closely about you as a garment. —11. In vy. 6, 7, the idea 
of the sufferings which the Christian readers were cailed upon to endure is again 
clearly suggested, and the course which they should take, as already set forth in 
iv. 19, is once more impressively urged upon their thought. The issue of all 
their sufferings would be their exaltation to glory when the appointed time should 
come; and the anxiety with which their hearts were likely to be filled, in con- 
nection with their trials and persecutions, might be laid upon God; they might 
trustfully and peacefully commit their souls to Him, their faithful Creator, 
because their welfare and salvation were a care to Him. The distinction in the 
words used here may be noticed: in the human mind, it is anxiety; in the Divine 
mind, it is care, He careth for you. — The aorist ἐπιρρίψαντες, perhaps, conveys 
the idea of an act once for all. The whole anxiety of life was to be cast upon 
God by one great act of confidence and trust in His perpetual care of the trusting 
soul. [Kiihl regards ὁμοίως (ver. 5) as indicating only that the exhortation of 
this verse corresponds with the one which precedes, without finding, in the 
adverb, the suggestion which Huther presents. — The connection of ver. 8 with 
ver. 7 he thinks to be this: This confidence (ver. 7) should not be like a carnal 
security, but the Christian should be, after casting his care, etc., as well as 
before, always sober and watchful (ver. 8).] 


XXIV. 
Vv. 9-11. 


1. The thought now turns from the sufferings to the one who originates 
them by inspiring his followers to contend against the kingdom of God. The 
adversary, the Devil, is to be resisted. To this end, especially, must the 
Christian readers be sober and watchful. The Devil is represented as roaming 
about, like a wild beast, with the intent to destroy all those whom he can seize 
upon, and by the power of persecution, etc., can draw away from the Christian 
faith. The way to withstand his assaults and resist his power is, to be firm, 
established immovably, in the faith which the believer has in his soul. Faith 
is here, as elsewhere, subjective faith. R. V. text renders τῇ πίστει, in your 
faith. —2. The participle εἰδότες is causal; it presents a ground on which they 
may thus resist the Devil, and an encouragement to do so, This ground of 
encouragement is the knowledge that the same sufferings are being accom- 
plished, —that is, are in process of being brought to their end, and to the issue 
which is designed in the plan of God for His people, — with reference to, for, 
in the case of, their Christian brotherhood in the world. The consciousness of 
the fact that the heavenly kingdom at the end is to be entered only after a 
course of testing and trial, is a strength to the Christian in every age, when he 
is called upon to endure. —3. The expression τὰ αὑτὰ τῶν παθημάτων seems to be 
used, instead of τὰ αὐτὰ παθήματα, in order, as De Wette says, to emphasize 
peculiarly the idea of sameness. —4. The assurance and promise of the result 
and issue of the sufferings are still again set forth. The God who called you unto 
His glory will not abandon His purpose. Whom He called, these He will glorify. 
The suffering will continue ὀλίγον, which seems here to refer to time, a little 


764 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 

” Ὰ 
while; the result will be permanent. This result is set forth in three words, 
perfect, establish, strengthen ; or if θεμελιῶσαι, which is doubtful, be admitted 
into the text, a fourth word is added, settle, as on a firm foundation. All 
these words seem to express a single idea, and the reference of them all is, 
apparently, to the establishment of character in holiness, and against all 
assaults of enemies and of evil, rather than to the reward in glory of the 
heavenly life: God Himself will secure this result (αὐτός): He careth for you. 
—5. The word κράτος is peculiarly appropriate in the doxology following this 
tenth verse, and is more impressive without the doubtful word δόξα, which is 
omitted by Tisch. and Westcott and Hort, than with it. [Kiihl takes ἀδελφότητι 
as a dative of reference (dativ.incommodi). The doxology of ver. 11 he compares 
with that in iv. 11; but he thinks that the thought is concentrated here upon 
the idea of κράτος, by means of which God is able to accomplish what He wishes 
to bring to pass. ] 


xx Ve 
Vv. 12-14. 


1. In these concluding verses, the writer refers to his letter briefly, as Paul 
does sometimes at the end of his epistles, and then offers salutations from 
those with whom he was now living. Then follows the apostolic benediction. — 
2. On the words and phrases of this passage, the following suggestions may be 
offered: (a) Silvanus is, in all probability, the person of this name mentioned 
by Paul. —(b) The words ὡς λογίζομαι are more naturally connected with τοῦ 
πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, than, as Huther prefers, with δι’ ὀλίγων. These words do not 
mean as I suppose, as A. V. renders, but as I account him (R. V.), or, as I 
judge or think, by reason of my knowledge of him. It is an expression of 
assurance, not of doubt. —(c) This is the true grace of God. If we read στῆτε, 
as the external evidence shows that we should, it seems probable that it is an 
imperative, as R. V. takes it. If this be the true view, the word this refers 
most naturally to what precedes, and the simplest and best explanation of the 
meaning, as it appears to the writer of this note, is this: At the close of 
the epistle, the apostle looks back, as it were, over its whole thought, and he 
finds everywhere, at the foundation of it, this idea of the Divine grace. His 
epistle has been called the epistle of hope. The hope is founded on the grace. 
He says to his readers: This grace which I have set before you throughout my 
letter, the grace on which all Christian hope rests, and on which it may securely 
rest, is the true grace of God. This I testify to you, as I exhort you. Stand 
fast and firmly in this grace. —(d) With respect to ver. 11, the writer of these 
notes would only say, that 7 συνεκλεκτῆ appears to him to designate a church, and 
not an individual, Peter’s wife, or some other Christian woman; that Babylon 
is to be understood literally, and not figuratively as if referring to Rome; and 
that Mark is the one spoken of in the Acts, and in the Second Epistle to 
Timothy, and 15 the author of the Gospel which bears this name, — the word son 
being used here in a figurative, spiritual sense. The remarks of Huther in his 
note on this verse, and in his Introduction to the Epistle, with respect to Baby- 
lon and Rome, may be commended to the attention of the reader. But the 
question of Peter’s relation to Rome is one which requires, for its full discus- 
sion, much more space than is given to it in this commentary. Whether he 
was ever in that city, or not, the question of the present verse is simply the 
question as to the place where this Epistle was written. [Kiihl connects ὡς 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 765 
λογίζομαι with τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ. ---- He regards εἰς ἣν στῆτε as an impossible 
reading, because the relative sentence must be only a further description of the 
particular χάρις to which ταύτην refers, and cannot be of a hortatory character. — 
He thinks the word συνεκλεκτῆ is to be understood as referring to a church, and 
this church is, as he holds, the one in Babylon, which word is to be taken in its 
literal sense, and not as a figurative or symbolic designation of Rome. ] 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


XXL. 
CHAPTER 1. 
Vv. 1-11. 


1. The salutation of this epistle is in some points like that of 1 Peter, but 
in some it is different. The differences, however, do not seem to be such as 
necessarily to suggest any difference in the authorship of the two letters. The 
addition of the name Simon, or Simeon, was not unnatural in the case of an 
old man who was drawing near his end, and, in view of it, was in a paternal 
and affectionate way addressing his readers. The addition of δοῦλος to ἀπόστο- 
doc, if any explanation of this is needed, may readily be accounted for in a 
similar way. That the readers should be spoken of in the more general 
manner which we observe here, instead of being described according to their 
places of abode as in 1 Peter, can hardly be regarded as occasioning difficulty, 
especially when we consider the indication in chap. iii. ver. 1.—2. The parti- 
ciple λαχοῦσιν denotes an obtaining by a divine allotment, and regards the 
Christian condition of the readers as a gift of God. Faith is subjective faith 
here, as generally in the N. T. It is simply placed in an objective relation to 
the participle. The pronoun ἧμιν refers to the writer and his fellow-apostles; at 
least, this is a natural reference, and all that is necessary to meet the demands 
of the case. This pronoun, as a dative, depends on the ἴσος idea in the adjec- 
tive ἰσότιμον, and the use of this adjective seems to be occasioned by the sense 
of the value of faith to every believer, which the writer had, and the sense of 
fairness in the equal allotment to all believers as they come into possession 
of the same faith. This sense of equal allotment is carried into a more full 
expression of it by the addition of the words ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, k.7.A. That δικαιοσύνη 
has here its ordinary, rather than its peculiar Pauline sense, is indicated both 
by the immediately preceding words with which it is connected, and by the fact 
that we do not obtain faith through justification, but justification through faith. 
The word here draws near to the idea of justice, that is, it suggests the thought 
of righteousness in its dealing equally and fairly with all. 

3. With reference to the words τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and 
the question whether they involve a declaration that Jesus Christ is θεός, the 
reader may be referred to the Additional Note of the American editor of 
Meyer’s Commentary, Epistle to Titus, chap. ii. 13, the passage most nearly 
parallel with this, in which the arguments on both sides of the question are 


766 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


presented. The points which are peculiar to the present passage are: (a) that 
ἡμῶν is here placed after θεοῦ, and not after σωτῆρος; this pronoun cannot, there- 
fore, have a limiting and defining force for the latter noun, and thus supply the 
place of an independent article distinguishing σωτῆρ from θεός as a different 
person; (Ὁ) that in this epistle there are four cases seemingly parallel with © 
this, where the phrases ὁ κύριος καὶ σωτῆρ, ὁ κύριος καὶ σωτὴρ “I. Xp., or ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν 
καὶ σωτὴρ ‘I. Xp. are used, namely, i. 11, ii. 20, iii. 2, 18, and in all these the two 
words joined by καὶ under a single article, are evidently appellatives relating to 
one and the same person; (c) that, on the other hand, in the verse which 
follows the present one (ver. 2), Θεὸς and Χριστός are evidently separated, though 
with a different arrangement of words, as two distinct persons. The different 
arrangement of the words in ver. 2 is pressed by those who claim that ver. 1 
applies the name Θεός to Christ; but the change from Θεός to κύριος in the pas- 
sages referred to under (b) is urged, after a similar manner, against the force of 
those passages in the argument, by those who deny this application in ver. 1. — 
In the R. V., the English revisers, both here and in Tit. ii. 13, read our God 
and Saviour (in Titus, our great God); the American revisers, on the other 
hand, adopt the other view, and read our God and the Saviour here, the great 
God and our Saviour in Tit. ii. 13. 

4, The same form of salutation, χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη, is found here 
which is used in 1 Peter; but the remaining words of ver. 2 are peculiar to this 
passage. ᾿Εν ἐπιγνώσει indicates that this grace and peace should be in and 
through the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ. The word ἐπίγνωσις seems to 
denote a more full knowledge than is meant by the simple γνῶσις; but sometimes 
the two words appear to be used in substantially the same sense, and this may 
not improbably be the case here. Possibly, however, it has its full significance 
here, and the apostle may ask for his readers that grace and peace which are 
connected with the fulness of knowledge, towards which fulness, at the close 
of the Epistle, iii. 18, he exhorts them to grow. 

5. Huther regards ὡς (ver. 3) as beginning a new sentence and paragraph; 
so do Alford, Tischendorf, Keil, and others. Westcott and Hort, Lachmann, 
and others, place a comma after ἡμῶν of ver. 2 (R. V., a semicolon), and con- 
tinue the sentence begun in ver. 2 to the end of ver. 4. The fact that all the 
apostolic greetings in all the other epistles are complete in themselves, and form 
a paragraph or sentence by themselves, to which Huther alludes, is a point 
worthy of consideration. It must be admitted, however, that the καί of ver. 5 
seems to be the beginning of an independent sentence, and not to be a conclu- 
sion from the preparatory and incomplete sentence contained in vv. 3,4. With 
some doubts, the writer of this note favors Huther’s view, believing that the 
καὶ δέ of ver. 5 may be accounted for as an irregular construction, occasioned by 
the length and involved character of the protasis portion of the long sentence, 
and by the thought of ver. 5, as something added on the readers’ own part to 
what had been done and made possible for them by God or Christ. —6. Which- 
ever view we take of the connection of vv. 3, 4, the particle ὡς is best translated 
by seeing that (as R. V.). The objective reason for the exhortation in ver. 4, as 
Huther remarks, is characterized by ὡς as a subjective motive. It is the not 
unfrequent construction of ὡς with the genitive absolute. The word πάντα in 
the passage introduced by ὡς is placed first for the purpose of marked emphasis. 
As the divine power has given us all things which pertain to life and godliness, we 
may well, on our part, give all diligence’ to develop all the virtues of the godly 
life, adding one to another and building up one upon another. —7. The refer- 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. T67 
ence of αὐτοῦ seems to the writer of this note, provided we hold God and Christ 
to be distinguished from one another in ver. 1, to be rather to God than to 
Christ, to whom Huther refers it, because God is, in that case, clearly the most 
prominent subject in the preceding verses. If, however, Jesus Christ is spoken 
. of as God in ver. 1, He takes the first place in the thought, and the pronoun 
naturally refers to Him. The objection which Huther urges from the improba- 
bility that the author would use the adjective divine, if he were speaking of God, 
is worthy of consideration, but can hardly be considered decisive. —8. The 
arrangement in the sentence of τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν as related to πάντα is 
noticeable. It is almost as if the writer had his thoughts so filled with a sense 
of the blessedness of piety, that he thought it to be everything, and so he said 
all things, but afterwards, bethinking himself, he added, “1 mean those which 
pertain to piety.”’ Of the two words ζωῦν and εὐσέβειαν, the former denotes the 
spiritual life of the soul, and the latter that life viewed in the light of its out- 
going towards God: piety or godliness; or perhaps, with Huther, the former is 
to be taken as conveying the idea of blessedness, and the latter, that of conduct 
as pertaining to the spiritual life. The preposition πρός is used here in the 
sense of tending or leading to. These things which tend to life and piety have 
been given us by God, and we are to use and appropriate them. 

9, δεδωρημένης is a deponent- middle form, with the sense of the active. The 
gift is bestowed upon us διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως, --- [5 word seems to refer to that 
more full knowledge of God which belongs to the believer, as contrasted with the 
unbeliever. It is by means of this knowledge alone, that the gift, in the actual 
realization of it, is made possible to the human soul. — The one who called us is 
God, of whom this phrase is everywhere used in the N. T. — διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς 
refers to God’s δόξα and ἀρετῇ. By means of these the call comes to us in an 
effectual way. The word ἀρετῇ is taken by Grimm and some commentators 
as meaning power. It thus becomes a kindred word to δόξα, or perhaps an 
explanation of the particular sense in which doa is here used. As we find the 
idea of power, however, expressed in the verse by another word (δύναμις), and as 
δόξα in itself, in such a sentence, naturally suggests this idea, it may perhaps 
seem better to regard ἀρετῇ as referring to God’s moral perfection, and δόξα to ᾿ 
His natural perfection. This accords with the view of Bengel. The glorious 
attributes of God in both lines unite in the accomplishing of His plan, which 
finds its realization in the call which brings us into the new life and the divine 
kingdom, — 10. δι᾽ ὧν (ver. 4) is more naturally referred to δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς, than 
to τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσ,, as Huther takes it; and if, as is probable, the subject 
here is God, and not Christ, the objection made by Huther to this reference is 
removed. The very great and precious promises, which are connected with the 
full attainment of the perfected spiritual life, are given through the same glory 
and virtue through which the call bringing us into that life comes tous. The 
promises here referred to are perhaps best taken as including all the promises 
connected with Christ and His kingdom, — both those which were fulfilled at 
and after His first coming, and those which are to be fulfilled at and after the 
second coming. —11. Διὰ τούτων refers to ἐπαγγέλματα. This is probably the cor- 
rect view, both because of the fact that this word is the nearest and natural 
antecedent, and because of the prominence which the promises have in the 
thought of the writer. The promises have been given to us, the writer says, in 
order that, by means of them, you (the readers) may become partakers in the 
divine nature. The view of Huther, that iva γένησθε means that you might 
become, and thus carries the participation into the present as well as the future, 


108 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


is possibly correct, but not necessarily so. The aorist subjunctive may be used 
in such cases with no marked distinction from the present. — The expression 
divine nature refers to the spiritual nature or character of God, with its perfect 
holiness, of which through the faith and love of the Christian life we become 
partakers, in the sense that the Christian life is a communication of God to 
man. The words are to be understood of the divine nature, rather than of a 
divine nature, the definite article being unnecessary because the divine nature 
is but one. —12. The words ἀποφυγόντες, x.7.A., denote that which is attendant 
upon the becoming, etc., and involved in it. The man who becomes a partaker 
of the divine nature, in the sense in which the promises are intended to make 
him so, has escaped already from the corruption which is in the world in lust. 
— The preposition ἐν before ἐπιθυμίᾳ denotes the sphere or element in which the 
corruption in the world has its existence, its origin, and its continuance. R. V. 
translates, by lust. The corruption here referred to may be both physical and 
moral; but the connection would seem to show that the latter, rather than the 
former, 185 what the writer has especially in mind. 

13. The explanation of αὐτὸ τοῦτο (ver. 5) given by Huther is the one more 
generally adopted by interpreters at present,—the meaning being the same as 
if the preposition διά were inserted before the words. The reference in these 
words is to the main thought of vv. 3, 4; that is, that God has given all things 
that pertain to life and godliness, including the idea of the gift of the promises, 
with their purpose and design. The Christian is, in view of all this, to make 
all effort on his own part. —14. Παρεισενέγκαντες, bringing in alongside of what 
is thus done for you, i.e., adding on your part, as R. V. renders it, all diligence. 
᾿Επιχορηγῆσατε, furnish or supply. The Christian readers are exhorted to supply 
or provide, on their part, what corresponds to, and naturally grows out of, that 
which God bestows. The preposition ἐν, in each of the cases in vv. 5-7, is to be 
translated in; and it marks that which is designated by the following word, in 
each case, as the condition in which the soul is supposed to be when the call is 
for a new supply, or the virtue which is already possessed, and in the possession 
of which the further development is to be carried on. The first of the points 
mentioned is faith. This is placed first, because faith is the foundation of all 
Christian life. It is assumed as existing when the Christian begins his work of 
providing the other things mentioned. The word ἐπιχορηγῆσατε is not prefixed 
to it, because it is obtained as a gift from God; see ver. 1, τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοὺ- 
ow πίστιν, --- (αἹ In faith, in the possession of faith, and that condition of the 
soul’s life which is indicated by it, furnish or provide virtue. —(b) The word 
virtue, as here used, seems to be nearly equivalent to Christian manliness, moral 
energy, the strength and courage of the soul: it is that which gives working- 
power to the soul, and thus gives life to faith, and perfects it on the out-going 
side, — the love side, where it develops its energy in good works. —(c) In virtue, 
knowledge is to be provided. Knowledge here means, by reason of its position 
in the order of the words, knowledge which guides and directs the working of 
faith as possessed of ἀρετῆ, By the supply of this, when the soul is already ἐν 
ἀρετῇ, the character is built up and built out towards its perfect development. 
It is moved along the right course, and away from the wrong course, so far as 
all the forth-putting of the energies of faith is concerned. —(d) Next in order 
comes self-control. The putting in exercise, if we may so speak, of this guiding 
and directing knowledge, must be in accordance with the regulating power of 
self-government, or the movement of the life under the influence of the ἀρετή 
of πίστις, as attected by γνῶσις, may not be restrained and well-ordered as it 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 769 


should be. — (6) In the possession of self-control, the Christian is also to furnish 
or supply steadfast endurance. The thought seems here to comprehend all that 
goes before: faith, as putting forth all the outgrowths which have been men- 
tioned, is also to develop into this new excellence; this being the characteristic 
of faith which secures its permanence andits final reward. Steadfast endurance 
under trials, temptations, etc., is the legitimate fruit and result growing out of 
self-control. —(f) Piety or godliness is placed next to steadfast endurance. If 
that piety which trusts and reverently regards and fears God is not the develop- 
ment of the soul’s life, when in the sphere of endurance, the truly patient and 
loving element is lost out of the latter, — that which makes it a Christian virtue, 
as distinguished from the mere courageous endurance of a man of the world. — 
(g) Piety is, according to the writer’s progress of thought, to develop into, or in 
the line of, love of the Christian brethren. This is a turning of the thought into 
a particular line, indeed; but such a turning is very natural and very character- 
istic of the apostolic writers. The movement of love to God and Christ in a 
development of itself towards that brotherhood of men, of which God is the 
Father, in a peculiar sense, and Christ is the head, was brought to the minds of 
all the apostles by the last command of Jesus, given to them on the evening 
of the Lord’s Supper, and was, no doubt, made to appear always of peculiar 
importance to them by reason of the circumstances and condition in which the 
company of believers was then placed. —(h) Brotherly love is now widened into 
love, which here, as it would seem, must mean love to all men. The virtues 
named grow, each one of them, out of the one already attained, and the develop- 
ment in the line of holy character and life is first God-ward, and then man-ward. 

15. Vv. 8, 9, are introduced as giving a reason, set forth on the positive and 
negative side, for the exhortation to supply these virtues with all diligence. It 
is an added reason, beyond the one indi¢ated by αὐτὸ τοῦτο of ver. 5 and con- 
tained in vv. 3, 4; but it does not stand in precisely the same relation to the 
thought of vv. 5-7. As connected with vv. 3, 4, the writer exhorts (vv. 5-7) his 
readers to do their part in the cultivation of character, because God has, on 
His part, done so much to make it possible for them to become like Himself. 
As connected with vv. 8, 9, he exhorts them (vv. 5-7) to cultivate the character 
in the line of these virtues, because these virtues help them onward in and 
towards that knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the means of realiz- 
ing the participation in the Divine nature to which they are called of God. — 
16. With reference to the words in vv. 8, 9, the following points may be noticed: 
(a) πλεονάζοντα, if taken in the sense given by Briickner, Wiesinger, Alford, and 
others, multiplying, increasing, becoming more, may perhaps follow somewhat 
more naturally the suggestion of development and growth which is contained in 
vy. 5-7. But the simple idea of abounding, which Huther favors, is all that the 
verb necessarily implies, and the other meaning cannot be insisted upon. — 
(b) ἀργούς and ἀκάρπους seem to be substantially equivalent to each other, only 
presenting the common idea under different figures or relations. —(¢) καθίστησιν 
— This passage shows clearly the use of this verb in the sense of rendering or 
making, or, at least, of that setting of a person or thing in a position and condi- 
tion in which he, or it, actually is by reason of that which belongs to the nature 
or life, and which comes out of it. The bearing of this instance of the use of 
the verb in the important passage, Rom. v. 19, is worthy of consideration. — 
(d) εἰς is the preposition looking towards an end. The knowledge of Christ is 
the end towards which the activity and fruitfulness of the Christian life tend. — 
(6) γάρ of ver. 9 is used where we might have expected dé; by the use of this 


770 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


particle here, as in some other similar instances in the N. T., the negative side 
of the matter is made a proof of the positive side. —(f) The correspondence of 
ἐστιν with καθίστησιν, as indicating the meaning of the latter word, should not 
be overlooked. —(g) μυωπάζων seems to be added as a sort of limitation and 
explanation of τυφλός: he is blind in the sense that, and because, he is short- 
sighted, — seeing only what is near, and not the distant realities of the heavenly 
life, ete. —(h) The cleansing of his old or former sins is that which was given 
him personally at the beginning of the Christian life. —17. Διό points back to 
vv. 8, 9, and on the ground of what has been presented in those verses the exhor- 
tation of ver. 10 is given. This exhortation, though not precisely the same as 
that in vv. 5-7, is evidently in the same line, and, substantially, to the same end. 
For this reason, perhaps, the writer uses the word σπουδάσατε, corresponding 
with σπουδὴν of ver. 5. The word μᾶλλον connects itself with the two opposite 
facts or results stated in the immediately preceding verses; according to the 
quotation given by Alford, guae cum ita sint, impensius. —18. The explanation 
of the word election here, which is given by Huther, seems to the writer of this 
note to be very probably the correct one, and for the reasons which he suggests. . 
The ἐκλογῇ ‘is the election effected by the κλῆσις [not that which precedes it], 
i.e., the separation of those who are called from the world, and the translation 
of them into the kingdom of God.’’ —19. The thought of ver. 11, which closes 
the paragraph, reminds us of the latter part of vv. 3, 4, the promises and their 
final design, and brings before us the fulfilment of the purpose of those promises 
in the entrance into the eternal kingdom of Christ. The connection with vv. 5-7 
is also manifest. As the Christian “‘supplies’’ the virtues in the development 
of the Christian life, Christ ‘‘ supplies’ the consummation at the end. 


XXVII. 
Vv. 12-21. 


1. Διό of ver. 12 points back to ver. 11, i.e., to ταῦτα ποιοῦντες, which points 
to σπουδάσατε 3e3aiav . . . ποιεῖσθαι. As the taking of this course on their part 
was the means of securing the entrance into the kingdom which is spoken of, 
the writer is impelled, on account of this fact, to remind and exhort the readers. 
The form of expression which he uses, if the reading adopted by the best textual 
critics is correct (ueAAjow), is quite peculiar, being found elsewhere in the N. T. 
but once in a similar construction. The reading of the T. R. (dueA7ow) would 
seem, at first sight, more simple and natural. The external evidence, however, 
is strongly opposed to this reading. Perhaps the rendering given by R. V. for 
μελλήσω, I shall be ready, fully meets the idea of the word, but there may be 
somewhat more of purpose and intention in it, I shall have it in mind. Huther 
apparently regards the compound expression μελλήσω ὑπομιμνήσκειν as a mere 
circumlocution for the simple future. The things respecting which the writer 
affirms that he shall have the intention or the readiness, on all occasions, to 
remind them, are those presented in vv. 4-11. The reason for this intention or 
readiness, so far as he is personally concerned, is set forth in the later verses 
of the chapter. This action on his part is not, indeed, necessary, as if the 
readers were unacquainted with the gospel or weak in their convictions; but he 
feels it to be fitting, and he has the impulse towards it, notwithstanding the 
fact that they were altogether in the opposite condition. The apostolic exhor- 
tations are sometimes given because of the failures and the very imperfect 
development of Christian life and character which were seen in the churches, 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. T71 


Sometimes, on the other hand, as is the case here, they were not given for this 
reason. They were given, rather, for the purpose of impelling forward by a 
stronger incentive, or by a renewed and earnest suggestion of the truth, those 
who had already a firm standing in the truth. The words used here, and the 
manner in which this putting them in remembrance of what they knew is set 
forth, are such as might be expected in the case of a man in advanced life, who 
was looking forward to his death as near at hand. —2. The particle δέ at the 
beginning of ver. 13 is the and of continuous discourse, rather than the adversa- 
tive but. The contrast with the clause immediately preceding, εἰδότας, x.7.A., 
which is supposed by some to be indicated by the particle, is not to be regarded 
as oceasioning its use. This contrast is, as shown by the καίπερ, with the begin- 
ning of ver. 12; and ver. 13 unites itself with this earlier clause of the twelfth 
verse. The adjective δίκαιον means right: in accordance with what ought to be. 
I shall have the intention or readiness always to remind you, and I think it 
right that I should remind γοιι. --- διεγείρειν, to thoroughly waken up, stir up; ἐν 
ὑμομνήσει, in the sphere of, in the way of, reminding. 

3. Ver. 14 gives the subjective reason for the ἡγοῦμαι δίκαιον, because I know. 
It was his knowledge of the approach of his death, —his consciousness of the 
fact of its nearness or its suddenness, — which made the apostle feel that it was 
right for him to be ready always to press the truths and duties upon his Chris- 
tian brethren, no matter how well they might be acquainted with them. As 
for the meaning of ταχινῆ, there is a difference of opinion on the question 
whether the word here means soon or sudden. Perhaps the rendering of R. V., 
which cometh swiftly, which takes hold upon both ideas, may best satisfy the 
demands of the case. The reference in the clause beginning with καθώς is, in 
all probability, to what Jesus said to Peter in John xxi. 18. In that passage 
there is an allusion to a death by violence, and nothing further. The prophecy 
of such a death might suggest the idea of suddenness; but it would not, in itself, 
suggest that of nearness. Nevertheless, when we consider the form of expres- 
sion which Jesus used, ‘‘when thou shalt be old,’ etc.,—we may readily see 
how Peter, after he had become old, might, on the ground of this expression, 
refer to his death as impending in the near future. —4. Δὲ καί of ver. 15, more- 
over also. The connection is evidently with the thought of vv. 12, 13; not only 
will he endeavor to waken up their remembrance of these things by repeating 
them as occasion may offer, but he will give diligence (σπουδάσω, comp. vv. 5, 10) 
that they may, on every occasion, be able to call them to remembrance after his 
decease. ‘Exaorore, on each occasion as it arises. This word, as Huther and 
other commentators hold, is to be united with éyew.—5. The particle γάρ of 
ver. 16 introduces the reason for σπουδάσω, and through this, as we may say, 
more remotely for all that he has said of his desire and purpose to put them in 
remembrance, from ver. 12 onward. The consciousness of the truth of the facts 
and teachings which they proclaimed, was the underlying reason of the earnest 
proclamation of them which the apostles made. 

6. The word μύθοις probably finds its main force in the contrast which it 
presents to the idea set forth by the words eye-witnesses of His majesty. It may 
be, however, —and this view would seem to be not unreasonable, — that, as Dr. 
Lumby remarks, the apostle refers, in these fables, ‘‘to the heathen stories of 
the appearance of the gods among men, or to some of the Gnostic figments con- 
cerning emanations from the Divinity.’’ Of course, if the Epistle is by Peter, 
and his death is to be placed before the year 70, the ‘‘ Gnostic figments”’ must 
be developments in that line which were not beyond those which are, perhaps, 


115 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


discoverable in the Epistle to the Colossians or the Pastoral Epistles. —7. The 
words δύναμις and παρουσία, since the latter is regularly used of the second com- 
ing, are both of them probably to be explained of the exalted and triumphant 
state of Christ, and not of His earthly life. These words do not refer to the 
Transfiguration scene; but the fact that Peter and his two fellow-apostles were 
eye-witnesses of His majesty, as then exhibited, gives the apostle the assurance 
that His power and coming are facts of the future.—8. The fact that the 
scene here spoken of is referred to as being on the holy mountain, and that 
the words, This is my beloved Son, etc., are given, which were heard at that time, 
is decisive evidence that the writer refers to the Transfiguration. The word 
μεγαλειότης, therefore, is used to designate that visible manifestation of the glory 
of Christ which was witnessed by Peter, James, and John, at that time. The 
writer speaks of himself and his fellow-apostles as having been ἐπόπται, a word 
which possibly refers, as Huther also allows, to the scene as involving a witness- 
ing of what was hidden from others, a vision of the mysterious grandeur and 
glory of Christ. As the verb ἐποπτεύειν is found twice in the First Epistle of 
Peter without any special meaning of this sort, it may be that the substantive 
is used here with the simple idea expressed by the verb in those instances, and 
has no significance as connected with its use as a terminus technicus.—9. Ver. 17 
is introduced by yap as giving, in connection with ver. 18, the justification of 
the words of ver. 16, yap being causal (for), as in ordinary cases, rather than 
explanatory (that is), as Huther takes it. The construction, also, is better taken 
as Winer takes it substantially, than as Huther takes it. The simplest explana- 
tion seems to be this, that the writer gives, in ver. 18, the conclusion of the 
participial sentence of ver. 17, the fact on which he wished to lay stress, — 
the construction being changed either purposely or accidentally. The fact 
which he wishes to present is, that he himself and his fellow-apostles heard the 
voice from heaven which followed the manifestation of the glory; and thus 
the evidence of the hearing of the words was added to that of the vision. — 
10. The genitive absolute, φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης, is explanatory of the honor and glory, 
but is perhaps best taken as indicating time: when there came, or was borne, a 
voice of such a sort (as that mentioned in the following words) to him from or 
by the majestic glory. —11. And this voice we heard borne out of heaven: This 
is the point on which the writer would lay emphasis, as connected with the 
evidence, that in making known the power and coming of Jesus he was not 
following cunningly-devised fables. The and at the beginning of ver. 18 con- 
nects the hearing of the voice with the fact of its utterance. — On the expression 
the holy mount, Alford justly says: ‘‘ De Wette is partly right when he says that 
this epithet ‘holy’ shows a later view of the fact than that given us in the 
evangelistic narrative; but not right when he designates that later view as 
wundergldubigere (more ready to believe in miracles). The epithet would 
naturally arise when the gospel history was known, as marking a place where 
a manifestation of this Divine presence and glory had taken place. The place 
whereon Moses stood, is said, in Exodus, to be holy ground. So that really all 
we can infer from it is, that the history was assumed to be already well known; 
which is one entirely consistent with the probable date of the Epistle.” 

12. Vv. 19-21 add to what precedes a setting-forth of the prophetic evidence, 
or declaration. In this passage there are several points which may be particu- 
larly noticed as bearing upon the interpretation: (a) The question as to what 
the καί at the beginning of ver. 19 connects the passage with, must depend, in 
some measure, on the explanation of the several words in the passage. The 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 773 


connection, however, when we consider this question by itself, would seem 
almost necessarily to be either between ἔχομεν (ver. 19) and ἐγνωρίσαμεν of ver. 16, 
or ἠκούσαμεν of ver. 18. The latter would appear to be the more correct view, 
because the writer seems to be moving in his thought along the line of the proof 
of the fact, that what is proclaimed by the apostolic preachers is the truth. — 
(Ὁ) βεβαιότερον, by reason of its position, is evidently predicative: we have the 
prophetic word more sure. The question as to what, in the thought of the 
writer, follows these words, more sure, is left by him in uncertainty, and conse- 
quently cannot be answered with absolute confidence. It would seem, however, 
from the emphasis placed upon the word by its position, and from the close 
connection of the sentences, that the writer’s meaning is a more sure proof than 
the one already mentioned. If this is the right view, the prophetic declarations 
of the O. T., which are fulfilled in- Christ, are regarded and set forth by the 
writer as an evidence of even greater strength and certainty than that of 
the vision on the mountain. This may be readily believed, because the long 
course of prophecies fulfilled, which could be understood and appreciated by 
every Christian for himself, would carry the greatest weight. The hearing of 
the voice came to a few, and was the evidence of one event to which they bore 
testimony. The fulfilment of prophecy was the realization in fact of God’s 
revelations respecting His plan. This interpretation accords well with all that 
follows, and is free from the objections which may be urged against other expla- 
nations of the meaning. If it be not adopted, the one to be preferred is that of 
De Wette and others, ‘“‘ the prophetic word is more stable to us from the fact 
that we saw and heard.’? —(c) The words of ver. 19, which speak of the lamp 
shining, etc., are to be explained in view of the fact that the readers are called 
upon to give heed to this light in the present, and until a clearer light shall come 
in the future; and that this clearer light is spoken of under the figure of the 
dawn and the day-star. The meaning of the words would thus seem to be: that 
the light of prophecy, as pointing to Christ and fulfilled in Him, should be the 
illumination and guide of their souls, until the beginning of that time when 
every thing should be made clear. The fulness of this time is the parousia ; the 
beginning of it is the near approach of that period, when the signs of the final 
and complete redemption are made manifest beyond doubt. — 13. Ver. 20 
presents that which would strengthen the readers in their giving heed to the 
prophetic word, and which, at the same time, constituted a reason for it. The 
explanation of this verse given by Huther is the best and most satisfactory one: 
No prophecy of Scripture arises out of, or depends on, private (of him who 
utters the prophecy) interpretation of the future. This explanation satisfies 
the demands of the sentence itself, and brings it into most natural and easy 
connection with what follows. The γάρ of ver. 21 gives the ground justifying © 
the statement of ver. 20; and this ground is, that the prophecies were given not 
by the will of man, but by the inspiring power of God. This proves that the 
prophecy, in any and every case, does not arise out of the interpretation of 
the future which the prophet makes for himself; and so, as being not humanly, 
but divinely, originated, it demands for itself the most careful and constant 
consideration and regard. — The explanation given by Grimm and others: ‘‘ No 
one can explain prophecy by his own mental power (it is not a matter of subjec- 
tive interpretation); but to explain it one needs the same illumination of the 
Holy Spirit in which it originated,’’ suits the words of the sentence itself, and 
is consistent with what follows; but the connection with ver. 21 is not so simple 
and natural as in the case of the other explanation. 


114 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XXVIII. 
CHAPTER II. 
Vv. 1-11. 


1. The opening verses of this chapter seem to form a sort of contrast to the 
closing ones of the preceding chapter. Besides, and in contrast with, the true 
prophets of the O. T. times, there arose also among the people of Israel false 
prophets. This connection of the chapters accounts for the placing the state- 
ment respecting the O. T. false prophets in the principal part of the sentence. 
If the main thought and purpose of the passage are considered, it is evident that 
the statement concerning the false teachers is the one of most importance, and 
the one for which the verse is introduced. In this view of the verse, the first 
clause should have been opened by the particle as, or according as, and the o¢ 
of the second clause should have been replaced by οὕτως. --- ἢ, With respect to 
the word ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, the view of Huther, with whom Keil also agrees, is 
probably to be preferred, ‘‘ persons who falsely give themselves out as teachers.” 
The fact that they are also teachers of what is false, is plainly declared in the 
clause which immediately follows this word. It is said of these teachers, that 
they shall be, not that they are, and that they shall privily bring in, ete., mapeco- 
agovow; while, in Jude, it is said that they have already crept in unawares or 
privily, παρεισέδυσαν. This difference is one which can be most readily accounted 
for, if Jude be regarded as the later writer of the two. That which it is said 
that they will introduce, is called αἱρέσεις, This passage seems to be the one 
which favors, more than any other in the N. T., the view that this word was 
used in the sense of heresy within the period of the apostolic writers. It is, 
however, at the most, only somewhat probable that this meaning should be 
given here. As these persons enter into the church life by a side gateway, as 
it were, and in a secret manner, so they may be properly said to introduce 
into the church, in the same side and secret manner, those divisions which 
result from their entrance and influence. The genitive ἀπωλείας, on either sup- 
position as to the meaning of αἱρέσεις, is a descriptive genitive which sets forth 
the objective relation: which tend or lead to destruction. —3. It may be fairly 
questioned whether the view, that ἀρνούμενοι is equivalent to this participle with 
ἔσονται, is not-as free from difficulties as that which takes καί as equivalent to 
even, and holds to a double participial construction. By regarding ἀρνούμ. as a 
verb, the sentence is made a simple one, the «ai being the connecting particle 
and. If neither of the participles can be taken as equivalent to a verb, the view 
of Huther is doubtless to be adopted. With Huther’s view of καὶ ἀρνούμ., there 
is a certain additional probability derived from these words, which seem thus to 
become explanatory, that αἱρέσεις is used in the sense of heretical opinions 
or doctrines. But no decisive argument could be drawn from this source. — 
4. There seems to be an intentional emphasis in the use of ἀπώλειαν at the end 
of ver. 1, as related to the ἀπωλείας which precedes. They bring upon them- 
selves the destruction to which the αἱρέσεις introduced by them into the church 
naturally lead. This destruction will be, in their case, sudden. 

5. Ver. 2 adds the result of what these teachers do, in the action of others. 
If we regard Jude as the later writer, we may explain the introduction of the 
word ἀσελγείαις by the commentary, as it were, which Jude gives. Jude says 
(ver. 4), Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying, ete. These 
followers are led by that teaching which makes grace an incitement to indul- 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER, 11) 


gence in sin, to imitate their teachers in such indulgence. Av’ οὖς probably 
refers to the πολλοί. The writer’s purpose is to describe the teachers and their 
evil influence; and the setting forth of this following on the part of many, on 
account of whom (i.e., of whose following thus) the way of the truth will be 
evil spoken of, serves to show what this evil influence is. —6. Ver. 3 describes 
* the false teachers as moved by covetousness, and trying to ‘‘ make merchandise” 
of the Christians by feigned words, i.e., as Huther well explains πλαστοὶς, deceit- 
Sully-invented words. This verse seems to show that ver. 2 is intended rather 
to form a part of the description of the teachers and their work, than to speak 
of the followers in and for themselves alone. —7. The difference between ver. 3) 
and Jude ver. 4 will be noticed. It may perhaps be said with propriety, that, of 
the two writers, the later one would more naturally speak of the false teachers, 
after they had appeared, as προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τὸ κρίμα τοῦτο. This cannot, how- 
ever, be insisted upon. 

8. Ver. 4 introduces the examples from the O. T., etc., by way of direct 
proof of what has just been said (γάρ). In Jude, the examples are evidently 
intended to serve the same purpose, but they are introduced more formally, 
and, as it were, independently. The passage is also carried forward in the way 
of condition (εἰ) and conclusion, instead of being presented, in this respect also, 
in a more complete independence, as Jude gives it. As to the examples them- 
selves in the two Epistles, see Note on Jude, ver. 5 ff. (a) The first example 
in this Epistle corresponds with the second one given in Jude. In the presen- 
tation of it, the writer simply speaks of the angels referred to as having sinned, 
without alluding to the special fact mentioned in the other Epistle. The state- 
ment of what befell them is substantially the same, — that they are reserved in 
darkness for judgment. The chief peculiarity of Peter’s expression is found 
in the word taptapwoag. The word Tartarus is held by some to be equivalent to 
Gehenna, by others (as Huther) to mean an intermediate place of punishment. 
The latter view is perhaps the more correct one. —(b) The second example does 
not correspond with the first in Jude, but seems to occupy its place. If 1 Pet. 
iii. 19 is explained of the preaching of Christ through Noah, there may be some 
connection between this passage and that one; but evidently there is a reference 
in 1 Peter to something more than is here presented. —(c) The third example 
answers to the third in Jude. The presentation of this example is, however, 
quite different in its details from that which Jude gives; especially, in that the 
characterization of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is less particular in Peter, 
and, also, in that the case of Lot is set forth here, as it is not in Jude. Peter 
takes pains to bring out the deliverance of the righteous, as well as the punish- 
ment of the wicked, while Jude limits himself to the latter; see ver. 9 of this 
chapter. — The word τεφρώσας seems to indicate the way in which the condemna- 
tion was inflicted, or possibly a fact attendant upon the condemnation. Huther 
appears to be correct in regarding καταστροφῇ as the dative of reference. The 
statement with respect to the condemnation may be indicative of Jude’s mean- 
ing in the corresponding passage (ver. 7), namely, that the eternal fire there 
referred to is the fire which destroyed Sodom, and not the fire of Gehenna. — 
9, The words of ver. 9 form the apodosis of the conditional passage covering 
vv. 4-8; and in the development of the main thought, the γάρ of ver. 4 belongs 
with the idea expressed in oidev, k.7.2., of ver. 9. The whole matter of these 
examples, therefore, which results in the establishment of the proposition of 
ver. 9, is connected, through this resulting conclusion, with ver. 3b, as a proof 
(γάρ, ver. 4) of the statement that the judgment of these false teachers does 


776 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


not linger or slumber. The manner in which the thought of ver. 10 is intro- 
duced, as compared with Jude, ver. 8, is somewhat strikingly indicative of the 
differences between the two Epistles, which are found in connection with 
the marked correspondences. On the general idea of the passage, see note on 
Jude, ver. 8 ff. —10. On ver. 11, see note on Jude, ver. 9. The expression 
greater in might and power means, probably, greater than men; that is, than ἡ 
these persons of whom the writer is speaking. This is the natural suggestion 
of the sentence, rather than greater than other angels, which is Huther’s 
explanation. 


XXIX. 
Vv. 12-22. 


1, At ver. 12, the thought turns to the more detailed presentation of these 
false teachers in their immorality, etc. The difference between this Epistle and 
that of Jude, in these verses, consists largely in the greater detail here, and the 
greater emphasis of denunciation in Jude. This latter element in Jude possibly 
points to a later date for the Epistle; a time when what was looked forward to 
in Peter’s words was actually realized in Jude’s surroundings. The severity of 
Jude’s language in vv. 10-13 is almost unequalled in any writing. — 2. Of the 
words in the passage, the following are found in exactly or nearly the same form 
in both Epistles: ἄλογα ζῶα ; φυσικώ (κῶς, Jude); ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες (ὅσα 
οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦντες, Jude); ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρῆσονται (ἐν τούτοις φθεῖ- 
ρονται, Jude); σπίλοι (σπιλάδες, Jude); ἀπάταις or ἀγάπαις (ἀγάπαις, Jude); συνευω- 
χούμενοι; the reference to Balaam, with the idea of hire; πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι (νεφέλαι 
ἀνυόροι, Jude); ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι (νεφέλαι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι, 
Jude); oi¢ ὁ ζύφος τοῦ σκότους (εἰς αἰῶνα, Jude) τετήρηται; ὑπέρογκα. The parts 
peculiar to Peter are as follows: (a) the word γεγεννημένα following ἄλογα ζῶα 
and connected with φυσικά: born mere animals, or connected with εἰς, «.7.2.: born 
to ἅλωσις according to their nature, —eic¢ ἅλωσιν is to be regarded as passive in 
sense, to be taken and destroyed ; (b) the peculiar variation in the representation 
that they will be destroyed: Jude saying that they rail at what they know not, 
and what they understand naturally, like the irrational creatures, in these things 
they are destroyed ; while Peter has: as irrational creatures, railing in matters 
whereof they are ignorant (they) shall in their destroying surely be destroyed. 
The form in Peter has here possibly the appearance of a later working-over of 
the sentence, but no positive affirmation can be made; the explanation of φθορᾷ 
as destruction, rather than the active destroying, is probably to be preferred; 
(c) the phrase κομιούμενοι (ἀδικούμενοι) μισθὸν ἀδικίας. The reading here is doubt- 
ful, but the word ἀδικούμενοι gives no very satisfactory meaning, since the 
«suffering of wrong or injustice, as the reward for doing the same, seems scarcely 
to be an idea which the author would express with regard to these persons; and 
that the words are not suited to express the general idea of experiencing evil as 
the reward for doing it to others, is shown by Huther in his foot-note, in which 
he comments on Hofmann’s view. —(d) ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφῆν. The 
explanation given by Huther to ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, referring it to the present life as con- 
trasted with the future, seems to the writer of this note improbable, because 
some other and less doubtful expression would have been at the author’s com- 
mand, had he wished to set forth this idea. It seems more simple to make the 
words mean, as in A. V. and R. V., in the daytime, extending their indul- 
gences and pleasures into the working time (the day), as well as the quiet and 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. TTT 


resting time (the night). —(e) On σπίλοι, σπιλάδες, ἀπάταις, ἀγάπαις, see notes on 
Jude, ver. 12. The word ἐντρυφῶντες is added in Peter. 

(f) Ver. 14. The several phrases of this verse, which are not found in Jude, 
serve to set forth the sensuality, covetousness, and evil and enticing influence 
of the false teachers. The sensual character of these men is referred to, however, 
by Jude, though not in this immediate connection. — (g) The compressing of 
the statement with respect to Balaam, and the addition, as if by way of compen- 
sation, of the cases of Cain and Korah, may suggest that Jude worked over, and 
worked on the foundation of, what Peter says. On the alleged discrepancy in the 
last words respecting the case of Balaam, which is the chief difficulty connected 
with the passage, Alford remarks: “ A discrepancy has been discovered between 
this and the Mosaic account, seeing that it was the angel, and not the ass, from 
whom the rebuke came, the ass having merely deprecated ill-treatment at 
Balaam’s hands. But the apostle evidently regards not so much the words 
of the rebuke uttered, as the miraculous fact, as being the hinderance. It was 
enough to prevent his going onward, when the dumb animal on which he rode 
was gifted with speech to show him his madness.” —(h) Ver. 17 corresponds 
with vv. 12b, 13, of Jude; but, evidently, Jude draws out the description more 
extendedly, and sets it forth with a much stronger denunciatory emphasis. 
Peter presents in two figurative expressions the empty and restless character of 
the false teachers. Jude has four such expressions, adding to what Peter says 
a picturing of their useless and destructive character; see note on Jude, ver. 19. 
— (i) The words, uttering great swelling words of vanity, are placed in a different 
connection from that in which Jude puts the nearly corresponding words of his 
ver. 16. Jude inserts before the passage containing these words, the quotation 
from Enoch’s prophecy, and seems to make a new beginning, as it were, of his 
description with the verse of which these words constitute a part. In his six- 
teenth verse, Jude represents the teachers as walking after their own lusts ; 
Peter represents them as enticing in the lusts of the flesh, dy lasciviousness, 
those who are just escaping from those who live in error, and adds the words, 
promising them liberty, while they themselves are bond-servants of corruption. 
Peter thus sets forth their action and evil influence as regards others, while Jude 
speaks only of their own personal life and behavior. The indication of this pas- 
sage is rather towards the working-over in Peter of what is found in Jude, than 
the opposite. — (7) At ver. 20 the two writers cease to move together, and Peter 
joins what he says in this verse very naturally to what has just been declared 
in ver. 19. There can be but little doubt that Huther is correct, as against 
Hofmann, with regard to the reference of ἀποφυγόντες, k.7.A., οὗ ver. 20, to the 
false teachers. The writer adds these verses as setting forth the idea of destruc- 
tion in the case of these men, to which he had alluded in other terms before this 
point. This passage corresponds in some measure, SO far as the matter of fall- 
ing away is concerned, with those in Heb. vi. 4-6, x. 26 ff., and is perhaps more 
difficult of explanation, in this respect, than either of those passages. — (k) The 
word righteousness, in ver. 21, is to be understood in its ordinary, not its peculiar 
Pauline or forensic, sense. It means the actual righteousness belonging to the 
true Christian life, as ἐντολή means here the commandment appertaining to that 
life, its moral law. As the writer in Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers 
says: ‘ That which in a doctrinal point of view is ‘the way of truth’ (ver. 2 of 
this chapter), is in a moral point of view ‘the way of righteousness.’ ”’ 

The questisn as to the priority in time which arises respecting the Epistle 
of Jude and ‘this Epistle is, so far as it is connected with this chapter, one of 


778 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


much difficulty; but to the writer of this note, the probability, on the whole;— 
as the several verses are carefully compared, —seems to be on the side of the 
priority of 2 Peter. 


XXX. 
CHAPTER III. 
Vv. 1-7. 


1. The third chapter constitutes, as Huther says, a third section of the 
Epistle, which is directed against the deniers of Christ. At the same time, 
there is an evident and close connection with what immediately precedes; and 
what the writer has now to say, belongs in that general line of description of the 
false teachers and doubters to which the Epistle is so largely devoted. —2. It is 
evident that the writer refers in ver. 1 to the fact that he had already addressed 
another letter to the readers. This reference does not, of course, necessarily 
point to 1 Peter as the other letter; but, when taken in connection with the 
allusions to himself as the apostle, there can be no question that, in the use of 
the expression employed here, the writer means to indicate that Epistle as the 
earlier one. —3. The object or design which the writer has in view in the two 
Epistles, he declares to be that to which he has already given expression by the 
use of the same phrase, διεγείρειν ἐν ὑπομνῆσει, in chap. i. ver. 18, together with 
the words dependent on this phrase. It is to be observed that the clauses begin- 
ning with τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες contain what is subordinate to the remembrance, 
etc., and thus, what is not the contents of the design, if this expression may be 
allowed, but, at the most, a secondary element connected with it. There is, 
therefore, nothing in the setting forth of the design of the Epistle here which is 
inconsistent with the design for which the First Epistle of Peter was written. 

4. The more particular statement of this design is contained 1n the words of 
ver. 2, that you should remember, etc.; these words, however, are not to be 
limited to the matter of the rising-up of doubters and mockers, but they refer to 
the more general idea of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The things 
which they should remember are described as the words of the prophets (of the 
O. T., as we must believe) and the commandment of the Lord. The meaning 
of this compound phrase must be determined, as it would seem, by the principal 
word contained in it. This word, evidently, is ἐντολῆς, which cannot justly be 
regarded as exhausted by the idea of the following verse, but must, at the least, 
include what Huther speaks of, ‘‘the command to lead a Christian life in expec- 
tation of the second coming of Christ.’? Perhaps it may have an even more 
extended meaning than this, and may cover the whole sphere of Christian duty, 
though this is less probable. The prophetic word also, as may be seen in i. 19, 
relates to the glory and majesty of Christ, which are to be fully realized, indeed, 
at and after His second coming, but which are manifested, before that time, in 
the course of the development of the kingdom which He is carrying forward. 
While there is more, therefore, of the thought of the second coming in this 
Epistle than in the first, the great thought of both bears upon that which is 
only consummated and perfected at that time. 

5. With respect to the words of ver. 2, the reader may be referred to the 
note on the corresponding passage in Jude (ver. 17). The similarity and dis- 
similarity in the expressions here used, as compared with what we find in that 
verse, are equally striking. Here only, we have the allusion to the prophets, 
the word προειρημένων, which in Jude is applied to the apostles’ words, being 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 779 


here used of those spoken by them. The position of the phrase respecting the 
prophets, before that which relates to Christ and the apostles, makes it sub- 
stantially certain that the O. T. prophets are meant. This is confirmed, also, 
by the allusion to the O. T. prophets in i. 19, in connection with the reference 
to the apostles in i. 16-18. — The expression which is here used of the apostles 
is also peculiar, as gompared with what is found in Jude. According to all the 
best authorities, ὑμῶν should be read here. But whether we read ὑμῶν, or with 
T. R. ἡμῶν, the position of the word in the sentence is different from that in 
Jude, and this difference is one of much importance. In Jude, the pronoun is 
placed after κυρίου, and by reason of this fact the apostles are spoken of in the 
third person, in such a way as apparently to set them altogether apart from 
the writer himself. In this Epistle, on the other hand, the pronoun is con- 
nected with ἀποστόλων. If the true reading is ὑμῶν, as it doubtless is, your 
apostles, it may indeed point to the apostles as distinct from himself, but the 
expression is not inconsistent with a reference to himself as one of the number. 
If ἡμῶν is the correct reading, and the meaning is as given in the A. V., he 
places himself among the apostolic company. It is only when we read ἡμῶν, 
and make it dependent on ἀποστόλων, that he certainly excludes himself: our 
apostles. While, therefore, it is possible, with either reading, that there is an 
indication here that the author was not an apostle, it is only possible, while in 
Jude the most natural understanding of the words points to such a conclusion, 
— The peculiar expression, ‘‘the-of-your-apostles-commandment of the Lord 
and Saviour,’’ is to be accounted for, probably, by the desire which the writer 
had to represent the commandment, with a certain emphasis, as being both from 
the Lord and from the apostles, in contrast with the words of the O. T. proph- 
ecies which had been spoken by the prophets. The words τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν 
are a kind of adjective phrase belonging to ἐντολῆς, and in respect to prominence 
are secondary to τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος; the meaning being the commandment of 
the Lord and Saviour communicated to you by or through your apostles. 

6. The correspondence of ver. 3 with Jude, ver. 18, will be noticed, and it 
will be observed that the language in Peter is such as may naturally describe a 
future which lies beyond the time of the writing of the epistle, while in Jude 
the expression is most naturally understood as a reference to a past foretelling 
of events then future, but now partly or wholly realized. —7. Ver. 4 presents 
a special matter which is not alluded to in Jude. The doubt respecting the 
coming of the Lord, because of the fact that the fathers had died, and no 
change or sign of the end had been seen, could only belong to a time, as it 
would seem, near the close of the apostolic period, or later than that epoch. It 
will be noticed, indeed, that the time of the appearance of these doubters is 
placed in the future, by the verb which is used. Ver. 5, however, seems to refer 
to them as already, in some sense and measure at least, present in or around the 
church. If we are to infer from ver. 5 that the future time mentioned had 
already come, this passage suggests a difficulty in placing the epistle within the 
lifetime of Peter, in case his death occurred at a date very near the time of 
Paul’s death. But perhaps we are not obliged to interpret the passage in this 
way. That doubters as to the second coming may have lived as early as the 
year 68, is by no means impossible, but the placing of the ground of their doubts 
in the particular fact alluded to in ver. 4, is that which suggests the difficulty. 
If we can, with any propriety, carry the time of the present verb λανθάνει forward 
to the standpoint of the future ἐλεύσονται, the difficulty may perhaps be avoided. 
—8. The fathers here referred to are those of the generation or generations 


180 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


immediately preceding. There is evidently a combined construction in the 
latter part of ver. 4, the thought being, that the permanent continuance of 
‘things, observable since the beginning of the creation, is still observable since 
the death of the fathers, — we see, these men said, what has always been seen; 
no change, no sign of the end, and of His coming. 


SEX ΚΊ: 
; Vv. 5-10. 


1. In these verses the writer answers and refutes the assertion of the scoff- 
ers: First, in vv. 5-7, by a reference to the history of the creation, and the flood, 
as given in the O. T. As at that early time the world, which had been created 
and preserved by the word of God, was destroyed by the flood, so the world 
that now is, is reserved for destruction by fire. —2. The explanation of θέλοντας 
and τοῦτο, given by Huther, is not generally favored. He refers τοῦτο to the 
contents of the preceding statement, and makes it dependent on θέλοντας, to 
which he assigns the meaning assert (desiring it to be so, holding as an opinion), 
for, whilst they assert this, it is hidden from them that, ete. This explanation 
involves a meaning which, though possible for θέλοντας, is not found in the use 
of that word elsewhere in the N. T.; and it seems less simple than the more 
common interpretation, which gives θέλοντας the adverbial force, which so often 
belongs to such participial words in connection with λανθάνειν. Were it not for 
these objections, Huther’s view would be a satisfactory and successful explana- 
tion of the words. —3. On ver. 5b, Alford says, “ἐξ ὕδατος, because the waters 
that were under the firmament were gathered together into one place, and the 
dry land appeared, and thus water was the material out of which the earth was 
made: δι’ ὕδατος, because the waters above the firmament, being divided from 
the waters below the firmament, furnishing moisture and rain, and keeping 
moist the earth, are the means by which the earth συνέσταται." On the whole, 
this is, perhaps, as satisfactory an explanation of this somewhat difficult clause 
as can be given. —4, δι’ ὦν. --- The reference of ὧν is probably to the two things 
previously mentioned, —the word of God, which was the creating force that 
brought the heavens and earth into being, and the water, which was the material 
agency, so to speak, through which the result was accomplished. The two 
things which brought the then world into existence effected its destruction, 
and so in the case of the present heavens and earth. They are kept in store 
by the same powerful word of God. The idea of the passage is, that there is a 
reserving of them for destruction by fire, as of old by the flood. The dative 
πυρί seems to be most naturally connected with τεθαυρισμένοι, for fire, τηρούμενοι 
being limited by the following words only. —5. Vv. 8-10 contain the second 
point which the writer urges: The time-element in God’s plans and dealings is 
far different from what it is in those of men. But let this one thing not escape 
you: The verb here corresponds with that in ver. 5. Though they forget, and 
if θέλοντας be rendered adverbially, wilfully forget, the lesson which might be 
learned from the world in the time of the flood, they should by no means lose 
sight of the fact here mentioned. Possibly there may be in the contrast here 
an argument of slight force in favor of Huther’s view of θέλοντας (ver. 5); the 
contrast being, more naturally, between forgetting and not forgetting, than 
between wilfully forgetting and not forgetting. —6. The genitive τῆς ἐπαγγελίας 
of ver. 9 is probably to be explained, with Huther, as depending immediately 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 781 


upon the verb, but R. V. and A. V. give the most successful English translation. 
The following phrase is, perhaps, best rendered: count, or account it, i.e., the 
Lord’s failure to fulfil the promise of the coming, slackness. ὑμᾶς refers to. 
the readers, but as representative of all men, as is indicated by πάντας, which 
follows in the next clause. —7. Ver. 10 contains a renewed affirmation, closing 
this refutation of the scoffers and doubters, that the day of the Lord will 
certainly come, and come suddenly and unexpectedly. The statement of this 
verse, and the repetition of it, substantially, in the verses which follow, present 
more distinctly before the mind than almost any other passage in the N. T., 
_ perhaps than any other passage, the idea of a physical destruction or transfor- 
mation of the present visible heavens and earth, and their renewal in the future 
as the abode of righteousness. If taken literally, the whole passage would 
seem to suggest, also, the idea that the righteous will live hereafter, in the 
future period referred to, on the earth. The language, however, is of a poetic 
order, and it may be intended only as a figurative setting-forth of the change to 
the future blessedness. —8. Huther’s explanation of στοιχεῖα is probably correct, 
the δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν of Matt. xxiv. 29. The idea is that the heavens and their 
constituent parts, the earth and what fills it, will be burned up and dissolved. 


EXE i 
Vv. 11-18. 


1. On the foundation of what is asserted in ver. 10, the writer now presses 
his closing exhortations upon his readers. The genitive absolute which opens 
ver. 11 is evidently causal in its character; and the present tense of the parti- 
ciple seems to be expressive of the certainty of that which has just been declared 
respecting the future. —2. The word ποταπούς is undoubtedly, as Huther also 
takes it, exclamatory, and the sentence goes forward to the end of ver.12. The 
word σπεύδοντας is best understood in the sense of hastening: they should not 
only look for, but should (by their piety, etc.) hasten, the coming of the day of 
God. Grimm, R. V. text, and others, regard the participle as meaning desiring 
earnestly. — δι’ ἣν, on account of which day, or which coming of the day. The 
Lord’s day, when it comes, will be attended by, and will occasion the results 
indicated. —3. Διό of ver. 14 refers to what immediately precedes, that is, the 
coming of the day of God, with what it involves, The verb εὑρεθῆναι refers to 
the time of the coming; and the words in peace are probably to be explained 
of that state of peace between the soul and God which may be reached in its 
perfection when the Lord comes. —4. The words, and account the long-suffer- 
ing of our Lord salvation, are a recalling of the thought of ver. 9, the desire 
of the writer being to impress his readers, as he closes, with a deep sense of 
the meaning of God’s mercy in any delay of the end. —5. The allusion to Paul’s 
writings in vy. 15, 16, is quite difficult of determination. To the writer of this 
note, the following points seem probable: (a) That a particular letter or class of 
letters is referred to in éypawev ὑμῖν, which was addressed by Paul to readers 
of the same general region with those here addressed: thus, of the letters which 
have been preserved to us, those to the Ephesians and Colossians are most prob- 
ably the ones indicated. — (4) That the reference is not simply to the one thought 
of the day of the Lord, etc., as here set forth, but to Paul’s exhortations to 
blameless living in view of the shortness of life, the end, etc. —6. With respect 
to the expression, the other scriptures, all that it seems necessary to find in it 


182 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


is a comparison of Paul’s writings with the other writings which were read by 
the Christian readers of this Epistle, and by the persons alluded to as wresting 
them, etc. It does not prove that the author places Paul’s letters on the same 
level of authority with the O. T. Scriptures, or even that an established collec- 
tion of Christian writings, such as we now have in the N. T., had already been 
fully completed when this letter was written. It does, however, seem to recog- 
nize some such writings as already having a certain acknowledged authority. 
The bearing of this matter upon the date of the Epistle can hardly be considered 
as decisive, but is deserving of serious consideration. —7. The word προγινώ- 
σκοντες seems to refer to a foreknowledge on the part of the Christian readers, 
which was gained through the declarations of this Epistle, or which was thereby 
renewedly established in their minds. —8. The doxology at the end of this 
Epistle is one of the two or three in the N. T. which are applied to Christ, all 
others being doxologies to God. The reference to Christ here is beyond question. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


ΧΧΧΙΙ 
CHAPTER I. 
Vv. 1-4. 


1. The similarity between the opening passage of this Epistle and that of 
the Gospel of John will be noticed by every attentive reader. At the very 
beginning the two books meet each other; and these first sentences carry in 
themselves evidence that the writer of the Gospel was also the author of this 
letter. The relation of the two books, in the order of time, may be open to 
discussion; but, whatever may be the decision of this question, there can be 
little doubt, it would seem, that, in the order of thought and development, the 
Epistle comes later than the Gospel. The Epistle is, as it were, the develop- 
ment of thoughts, the historical foundation of which is presented by the Gospel, 
in its biographical record of Jesus’ life. This relation of the later work to the 
earlier makes it antecedently probable that the writer, in his use of the word 
Logos, in ver. 1, has reference to the personal Logos, of whom he speaks in the 
first verses of the Gospel. —2. The central thought of the Epistle is that of 
Som. This ζωῇ is that which God has,—the light-life, in which there is no 
darkness, This ζωῇ was manifested in a person, so that it could be observed 
and studied, like an ordinary life. The revelation of it through this person was 
the means by which the realization of it in all other persons couid be most 
easily and fully accomplished. It was through the fellowship with Jesus Christ, 
that the fellowship with the Father was to be attained. —3. Such being the 
author’s thought, it was natural that he should make very prominent, at 
the beginning, the fact of the manifestation of the life in Jesus, as he and his 
fellow-disciples had seen it. The peculiar repetition and emphasis of his 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 783 


expressions are characteristic of his style, as seen both in the Gospel and 
elsewhere in the Epistle. By this means, he would impress upon the minds of 
his readers that the life had been actually lived in his own presence. 

4, With reference to the individual words and expressions used in these first 
four verses, the following suggestions may be offered: (a) By the words 6 ἣν ἀπ’ 
ἀρχῆς, we are carried in thought to the ἐν ἀρχῇ in the first verse of the Gospel. 
That the reference is to the eternal existence of the Logos, is indicated also by 
the fact, that, in ver. 2, the life predicated of the Logos is said to have been with 
the Father in the same sense, apparently, as that indicated in the Gospel i. 1 
The form of expression, ἣν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, is so precisely like the ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν 
of John i. 1, that it can hardly be interpreted in a different way. We have, 
therefore, in these verses, the two thoughts of the prologue of the Gospel, —the 
existence in the indefinite, eternal past, and the manifestation in personal form 
in the present. — (Ὁ) The form of words used, ὃ ἣν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν... περὶ 
τοῦ λόγου, as distinguished from the direct predications respecting the Logos 
which we find in the Gospel, is to be explained in connection with the differ- 
ence between the two books. The writer is not here making statements with 
reference to the Logos, as to what He was, etc., but is preparing to set forth 
the life which dwelt in Him, and which was manifested in and through Him. 
The Logos was and became, he says in the Gospel ; but here : what was, etc., 
concerning the Logos, we declare and announce to you who read. As con- 
nected with the same fact, we may easily account for the use of ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς instead 
of ἐν ἀρχῇ. The existence of the Logos was in the beginning ; but that which 
the apostles announce respecting the manifestation of the light-life, in and 
through the Logos, is that which was from the beginning, and which has now 
been revealed in His personal life on earth. —(c) The addition of ζωῆς as a 
descriptive genitive to λόγου, and the fact that in other writings of the N. T. we 
find such expressions as the word of truth, the word of the kingdom, etc., refer- 
ring to the Gospel, can hardly be considered as decisive grounds for denying to 
λόγος here the personal sense. Nor can the use of λόγος without such a defining 
genitive, in the three or four places in John’s Gospel where the personal Logos is 
spoken of, be urged as conclusive. The prominence which the writer here evi- 
dently desires to give to the idea of ζωῆ, as connected with Jesus Christ, accounts 
sufficiently for the addition of this word; and the evident suggestion of person- 
ality in the verbs of vv. 1, 2, turns the reader’s mind most naturally and directly 
to the personal Logos. The writer’s thought moves after a somewhat similar 
manner to that which is noticeable in his Gospel (yet of course with differences 
belonging to the character of the two books), from a reference to the Logos, 
who appeared in the world in the presence of the disciples, to Jesus Christ, the 
manifested Logos in a human personality. —(d).The word handled, of ver. 1, 
may possibly refer, as some indeed hold that it does, to what occurred after the 
resurrection of Jesus. It seems doubtful, however, whether there is any such 
definite and particular reference, and whether, on the other hand, there is any 
thing more in this repetition of substantially the same idea than a special 
emphasis which the writer would give to his statement, and perhaps a certain 
distinct recalling, in the two aorist tenses, of the personal experience of the 
disciples during the lifetime of the Lord. Ver. 2 seems to present the strict 
order of time and tenses: The life was manifested; we have seen it; we bear 
witness, and announce to you. —(e) The correspondence in the idea of fon and 
ζωὴ αἰώνιος, which is noticeable in John’s Gospel, is evident here, The life of the 
soul—the light-life, which is like God’s life—is in itself, and as soon as it is 


784 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


possessed, eternal life, according to this writer’s view of it. This eternal life was 
in the Logos; it was manifested in Jesus; it was imparted by Him to the apostle 
and his fellow-disciples, with whom Jesus lived in His earthly life; through the 
possession of it they came into fellowship — into a real and vital participation in 
the eternal life, the light-life— with Jesus, and with God Himself. The apostle 
now announces it to the readers that they also may, in union with himself, have 
participation in the same life.—(f) If in ver. 4 ὑμῶν is the true text, it would 
seem probable that the apostle’s thought is connected with the idea that the 
fellowship in life with God and Christ is the completeness of the joy of the soul. 
The idea suggested in John xv. 10, 11, may be compared with that of this verse. 
On the other hand, if ἡμῶν is the true text, the meaning would seem to be this: 
that the apostle’s joy would be made complete, if his readers should enter into 
the same fellowship into which he had himself entered, and that, so far as he is 
himself concerned, he writes to the end of making his joy in this way complete. 
The xai of this verse, in either case, adds the expression of this purpose (éva) to 
that previously mentioned. 


XXXIV. 
Vv. 5-10. 


1. After the introductory passage, vv. 1-4, the apostle begins the develop- 
ment of his thought in the Epistle by stating the great fundamental truth which 
lay at the basis of his message to the readers; the truth that the Divine life is 
light, a perfect and complete light, in which no darkness at all is intermingled. 
This message was the great revelation given by Jesus, and heard from Him. 
The manifestation of the Logos in Jesus Christ was to the end of bringing 
life to men, or of bringing men to life. The true life is God’s life, and this life 
is light. Man is to gain this life by coming into fellowship with God in His 
life. The end is to be attained as the apostle himself had attained it, by 
putting one’s self under the influence and teaching of Jesus Christ, and thus 
growing into His likeness. The gateway by which one truly enters within the 
sphere of this influence and teaching is faith,h—2. The same contrast between 
light and darkness is found here as in the prologue of John’s Gospel. Darkness 
is the sphere of the sinful world’s life. The man who walks in the darkness 
has no fellowship with God, no participation in God’s life. —3, This writer, 
like the other writers of the N. T., has the idea of sin as possessing and having 
control over men. Like them, he writes for the purpose of showing the way 
out of the sinful life, and into the opposite. But his mode of conception, and 
his phraseology, are affected by the peculiar character of his mind and soul. 
He is of the introvertive, contemplative, inward class. Life thus seems to him 
a growth into the likeness of God—a movement of the soul out of darkness 
and sin into light—a coming into and progress in communion with God—a 
receiving into one’s self the light-life, until at length all the darkness is- 
expelled. To say, therefore, that we have fellowship with God, and yet to live 
and walk in the darkness, is a contradiction in terms. ‘The man who does this 
is outside of the sphere of truth; he isa liar. There is no true living except as 
the life rises above the darkness into the light, that is, except as the soul’s life 
moves upward towards God’s life, and transfers the latter into itself. —4. The 
addition of the peculiar expression, and we do not the truth, to the word we lie, 
is in accordance with the style of John. The Epistle keeps very prominently 
before the mind of the reader, even from the beginning, the idea that the true 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. j 785 


life is one which manifests itself in action; that the true faith and love are the 
faith and love which have a working force in them. The truth is something to 
be done, as well as to be believed. But the doing is, to his thought, the natural 
forth-putting of the inward vitality. The inward life, as he dwelt in it for 
himself, and concentrated his thinking upon it, was an inward life; and, there- 
fore, it was necessarily also an energizing power for the doing of all that to 
which the belief naturally led in action. 

5. If, however, we walk in the light (ver. 7) as He is in the light, the light- 
life has begun within us. The word as, in this verse, can hardly be regarded as 
indicating measure or degree. It conveys rather the idea of correspondence in 
the facts of the case. The light-life is perfect and complete in God; it may be 
partial and incomplete in Christian men; nevertheless it is the same life, and 
the latter walk in the light as, i.e., as really as, (and with the same fact lying 
at the basis of the statement), God Himself lives in the light. —6. Instead of 
saying in ver. 7, we have fellowship with Him, which expression we might 
naturally expect as answering to ver. 6, the writer uses the words, we have 
fellowship with one another. This change of expression is to be accounted for, 
as we may believe, by the fact that the two ideas of union with God and union 
with one another, which are first suggested in ver. 3, seem to be in the writer’s 
mind in the development of his whole thought. —7. The addition of the words, 
and the blood of Jesus, etc., is in the line of the thought hinted at above in 
connection with the expression, as He is in the light. The Christian believer 
enters, when he comes into union with God by faith, into the sphere of the 
light. But the influence and power of the light upon his soul become gradually 
greater. There is still somewhat of remaining sin, —the lingering of the 
element of darkness, in which he had previously had his life. The indication 
of this verse seems evidently to determine the reference of the word sin to be 
to this sin which still abides with the Christian after the beginning of his new 
life. As the Christian enters within the light-sphere, and comes into fellowship 
with God, the blood of Jesus, which was made effective for him in his passing 
out of his old condition, is also continually made effective in removing the 
sinful element which remains. —8. The reference of the word sin, thus deter- 
mined in ver. 7, is, by the connection of thought, determined also in ver. 8; and 
the view of Huther and others here is correct, that the writer is alluding to sin 
as belonging to the Christian after he has entered upon the Christian life. As 
Huther remarks: ‘‘ Even though as Christians, who are born of God, we have 
no longer sin [see iii. 9] in the sense that περίπ. ἐν τῷ σκότει is true of us, never- 
theless we do not yet cease to have sin; if we deny this, if we maintain that 
we have no sin at all, then what John says in the following words is true of 
us.”? —9. The denial that we have sin — that sin still has remaining influence 
over us, and an abiding force as a principle —is a denial of the true fact of the 
case. It is such a contradiction of the reality as proves that the truth has not 
found entrance into the soul and its life. With such a denial, therefore, the 
soul places itself outside of the true path along which it must pass from 
the darkness into the light — πλανῶμεν: it puts itself on the wrong road, and 
goes astray from the truth. 

10. The true course, on the other hand, is confession, which acknowledges 
the fact and power of sin, and seeks to be delivered completely. When the 
soul moves along this course, the promises are fulfilled; as the soul is forgiven, 
so also it is cleansed. It is cleansed from all unrighteousness, until the light- 
life becomes perfect and complete. —11. This cleansing, as well as the: forgive- 


180 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


ness, is so vitally connected with the whole plan and offer of salvation, that 
God’s faithfulness and righteousness are pledged to its accomplishment. The 
idea of righteousness here, like that of faithfulness, is related, no doubt, to the 
thought of God’s promise of salvation to the one who confesses, etc. After 
such a promise, His righteousness requires Him to fulfil it, the conditions 
having been fulfilled. But not improbably, in all such expressions as this, the 
N. T. writers —and especially one who penetrated so deeply into the central 
thoughts of the Christian system, and reflected so constantly upon the life of 
the human soul in its relation to God, as did the writer of this Epistle and the 
Fourth Gospel—had a conception of the righteousness of God as connected 
with the very life and being of God. It is, as we may say, of the essence of 
God’s life, that when the finite, dependent, created life draws near to itself, 
with the desire and effort to pass out of the darkness into the light, it should 
open itself helpfully and forgivingly. The conformity of God’s nature to what 
it ought to be, and what it must be if it is true to itself, — that is, His righteous- 
ness, in the strictest sense of the term, — requires that He should forgive and 
purify the one who confesses his sins. He can be no more faithful to Himself, 
than He can be to His promise, if He fails to do all this for the soul which 
truly turns towards Him. —12. It is because of this deeper thought of God’s 
righteousness, as we may believe, that the writer presses the subject upon the 
reader’s attention, and it is in the line of this thought that he develops the idea 
of the fundamental necessity of the union of the loving and believing soul with 
God, in various ways, throughout the Epistle. — 13. Ver. 10, as Alford remarks, 
is not a mere repetition, but a confirmation and intensification, of ver. 8. The 
denial of sin puts us in an absolute contradiction of God, and outside of the 
whole sphere of His word. The whole plan of God revealed in the Gospel is 
founded upon the fact of sin, and of sin which needs to be forgiven, and from 
the power of which the soul needs to be perfectly cleansed. — By these strong 
contrasts, among which this last one is especially emphatic, the apostle lays the 
foundation of what he has to say in the following chapters. The light-life is to 
be secured, if the soul is to be saved. In order to the entrance upon the light- 
life, there must be a passing out of the darkness. To this end, the fact of sin 
must be acknowledged, and the cleansing through the blood of Christ must be 
realized. 


XRERVe 
CHAPTER II. 
Vv. 1-6. 


1, The word ταῦτα, of ver. 1, refers primarily to what is said in i. 5-10; ina 
secondary sense, it may refer also to the entire contents or message of the 
Epistle. The apostle announces to his readers the great fundamental truth 
which he has to proclaim, the truth that the Divine life is the light-life in which 
no darkness at all is intermingled; and he sets forth the way by which this 
Divine life is opened to and secured by the human soul, namely, by passing out 
of the sphere of darkness and walking in the light, in order that the end to be 
attained may be realized in the case of these Christian readers. The man who 
walks in the darkness is wholly outside of the sphere of the light; he knows 
nothing of the true life. But the man who turns from the darkness towards 
the light, will still have some element of sin remaining with him, which, as 
he comes more and more into the fulness of the light-life, will pass away, yet 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 181 


which needs, so long as it remains, to be forgiven and cleansed. This is accom- 
plished through Christ and the efficacy of His blood. — The truth, therefore, 
is, that the way to life for the human soul is the conforming of its life to the 
Divine, the living and walking in the light; and the way out of the darkness 
is through forgiveness and purification. This the writer announces to his 
readers, he now says, to the end that they may not sin; that is, that they may 
become free from the sin which remains, and thus may come into the perfect 
light. The verb sin here is in the aorist tense, and, as Canon Westcott remarks, 
“the thought is of the single act, not of the state;” “the apostle is’? not 
‘simply warning his disciples not to draw encouragement for license from the 
doctrine of forgiveness. His aim is to produce the completeness of the Christ- 
like life.” But with the setting-forth of this aim, which carries with it an 
urgent exhortation, the apostle connects the encouraging assurance that, in 
case the Christian who is ready to yield to the exhortation falls into any act 
of sin (the aorist tense again), there is an advocate with the Father, and a pro- 
pitiation for sin. —2. The word παράκλητος, as here used, undoubtedly has the 
sense of advocate. Jesus is the one ‘‘called to the side or aid’? of men, 
(the original significance of the word), in this particular way of aiding. On 
the general use and meaning of this adjective-noun, some suggestions are offered 
in the Additional Notes to the American edition of Godet’s Commentary on 
the Gospel of John, chap. xiv. The meaning in John’s Gospel is there held 
to be helper, as including the ideas of teaching, revealing the truth, ete. 
The Paraclete spoken of in the Gospel is the Holy Spirit; here, it is Christ. 
The offices of the two are somewhat different, but they both stand in the rela- 
tion of helpers, — the former being teacher, guide, comforter, as He is referred to. 
in John xiv.-xvi.; the latter, as here referred to, being an advocate before the 
tribunal of God. Some prominent writers, however, hold that the word means 
advocate in the Gospel, as certainly as in the Epistle. —3. The adjective δίκαιον 
seems to have a certain predicative character: as being righteous, and not to be 
a simple descriptive word, the righteous. This word evidently refers to Jesus as 
having exhibited perfect righteousness in His earthly life and in His character 
asaman. As having such righteousness, He is fitted to present His offering 
for sin, and to become the advocate for those who sin. The four points which 
Huther presents, in his ‘‘ Remark” at the end of his note on ver. 1, are worthy 
of notice as setting forth, according to his own expression, the chief elements 
which are the result of the apostle’s statement. 

4. The statement of ver. 2, that Christ is the propitiation, etc., is added by 
καί as co-ordinate to what precedes. This verse, therefore, is not expressed in 
the form of a ground or reason for the preceding verse; it is, on the other hand, 
an additional declaration, which brings out the thought that the same one who 
is the advocate is also Himself the propitiation. This co-ordination of the sen- 
tences serves to show that the deliverance from sin, even from its beginning to 
its end, is due to Christ, and is secured by Him. The advocate presents His 
propitiatory offering of Himself in His plea before the tribunal. By that offer- 
ing He opens the way of forgiveness for all men, if they will accept it. By His 
advocacy He gains for His followers the result for which He undertook His work 
as a Saviour. —5. Ver. 3 seems to indicate the relation in which vv. 1, 2, stand 
to each other, according to the writer’s thought, so far forth as ver. 2 is universal 
and ver. 1 applies to the believer. Ver. 2 presents, in the clearest language, the 
‘declaration that the atonement is universal forall men. Ver. 1 limits the advo- 
cacy to the case of the believer. Ver. 3 declares that that true knowledge of 


788 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


Christ, which is connected with the realized result of the application of the 
propitiatory offering to the individual soul, is gained and possessed only by those 
who come into union with Him by obedience. — This third verse, however, 
brings before the mind of the reader the importance and necessity, also, of not 
sinning (ver. 1), that is, of passing completely out of the dominion of sin and 
darkness, in order to the full possession of the true life. The knowledge here 
spoken of is that knowledge which John has in mind in his writings, and which 
is connected with his mode of thought and conception. To know God is to be 
in that union and communion of the soul’s life with Him, which gives to one 
soul a true and full apprehension of another. It is not love or friendship, but 
it is the knowledge which belongs within the sphere of love and friendship. 
Paul, in passages like 1 Cor. viii. 2, 3, 1 Cor. xiii. 12, seems to hesitate to affirm 
such knowledge on man’s part, while in this life. To know God, or rather to 
be known by Him, he would say. I shall hereafter fully know, as I was while 
in this life myself fully known. But John, with his tendency to abide in the 
soul’s inmost living, and in his joyful experience of the growth of the soul 
in the society and under the influence of Jesus, feels that this knowledge is 
realized now — in its beginnings and its early stages indeed, but yet truly. The 
eternal life is begun already. The reality is already in possession of the soul; 
the growth towards the fulness is to be ever onward in the future. —6. The 
necessity of obedience to the existence of this knowledge belongs to the relation 
of man to God as a creature under moral obligation, and is also connected with 
the fact that the light-life, in which is no darkness at all, is God’s life. Man 
must, therefore, come into complete conformity of will with God, if he would 
enter into the completeness of the light-life. To pretend to know God, without 
obedience, is a contradiction in terms. The man who makes this pretence and 
claim is a liar, a person in whom the truth has no place. 

7. The intimate and vital connection between love and knowledge, which is 
manifest everywhere as appertaining to this apostle’s thought, is evident in this 
passage. The love of God (ver. 5) is, as Huther also affirms, love to God, the 
genitive being objective. When the Christian believer keeps the word, that is, 
when he keeps and fulfils the commandments of God, his love to God, in the 
union of friendship as between two souls, is perfected; and by means of this 
perfect obedience, manifesting, and growing out of, perfected love, we know 
that we are in Him in the inmost life of the soul. —8. Ver. 6 turns the thought 
to Christ, and suggests that which lies at the foundation of the entire Epistle; 
namely, that, as Christ is the revelation to the world of the light-life in God, 
men must imitate Christ, and live after His way of living, and be in fellowship 
with Him, if they are to come into the possession of the life which God has. — 
9. The verses from i. 5 to ii. 6 serve to show the relation in thought, if not 
indeed, also, in the date of the two books, between the Epistle and the Gospel. 
We have here most evidently, as it would seem, the truth which the apostle 
formulated as the result of his meditations on what Christianity had laid open 
to him. In the Gospel, on the other hand, we find what is set forth as the 
words of Christ in His conversations with His disciples and the people. If 
the latter is regarded as the record of what grew, in the progress of the writer’s 
thinking, into the formulated thought, the most natural and simple account of 
the two books is given. But if we change the supposition, and make the 
Gospel grow out of, or find its foundation in, the Epistle, we have what is most 
improbable, not to say inexplicable, as the result. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 789 


2.0.2.8 G 
Vv. 7-11. 


1. The view of Huther respecting the connection of these verses with those 
which precede seems to be correct: that in these verses we have a more partic- 
ular statement of the nature and import of τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ or of περιπατεῖν 
καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησε. The close union between the love of God and the love 
of one’s brother is central to the Johannean thought; and, by reason of this 
fact, a special prominence is given to the latter kind of love, as the fulfilment 
of the commands of God. This apostle had no idea of an inward life which 
had no outward forth-putting of itself in action. The true inward life was, 
in a certain sense, every thing to him. He meditated upon it, and watched its 
growth in himself, with intense interest. The light-life of the soul was, to his 
thought, the in-breathing, as it were, of the light-life of God, and was to be 
developed by communion with God and Christ. But this light-life was, in his 
conception, as truly as it could have been in that of any other of the apostles, a 
living, outgoing life. Love which loved no one, and was not ready to do good 
to any one, had nothing of the essence of love in it. The love of the soul to 
God proves itself by love to the brethren. —2. This being the case, we may 
easily account for what seems, at the first sight, to be a somewhat abrupt turn 
at the beginning of ver. 7. But when it is borne in mind, that, in a sense, the 
central command of all is that of love, it cannot be considered strange, that, at 
this point, the apostle should pass from what he has said of the light-life, and of 
the way into it and in it, to thiscommand. Moreover, it is to be remembered that 
he has called the thought of the reader to Christ in His relation to the opening 
of the new life and to the growth of the soul in it. It would seem not un- 
natural, therefore, that he should bring to their minds the command which 
Christ, at the time of His separating from His disciples, gave to them as the 
guide and ruling power of their future life. Love to one another because of 
and inspired by love to Him; love to one another, therefore, which would bring 
them into closest union with Him, and thus bring them into the life which He 
revealed to the world: this was the commandment which was at once new and 
old, and was the sum and centre of all commands. 

3. The commandment here referred to is evidently that of love to one’s 
brother. It is called a new commandment in ver. 8, and not a new one in 
ver. 7. The explanation of the latter expression is indicated by the closing 
words of the seventh verse. The command was not new, because, and in the 
sense that, the readers had heard it from the beginning of their knowledge of 
the Christian life. It was a part of the message which came to them from 
Christ, the revealer of the light-life, through the apostolic preachers. It was 
new in another sense. This seems, again, to be indicated by the words which 
form the latter part of ver. ὃ, It is new, in that, as it enters into human expe- 
rience, and is realized in its fulfilment in each individual reader through the 
passing-away of the darkness, and the shining of the light for and in him, it 
becomes that new commandment for each one, which it was for the twelve 
when it was first given by Jesus. —4. The antecedent of the neuter relative 6 is 
the ἐντολὴν. This commandment as true, that is, as realized in its fulfilment. 
in Him and in you, —in Christ and His followers in their individual and suc- 
cessive experience, and thus in and through the union between Him and them, 
—is a new commandment. —5. The relation of the ὅτι clause, in which ὅτι, no 


790 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


doubt, means because, is to the 6 ἐστιν clause which precedes. It is because the 
darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining, that this com- 
mandment is fulfilled in the experience of Christ’s followers as united with 
Himself. —6. We find now, in vv. 9-11, another instance of the peculiar repe- 
tition of positive and negative sentences, or sentences which present the same 
idea on opposite sides, which has been already noticed, and is so characteristic 
of this Epistle and this writer. This repetition is evidently for the purpose of 
emphasis, centering, still more impressively than before, upon love to the Chris- 
tian brother, what had been previously said of keeping the word and the comn- 
mands of God. Comp. ὁ λέγων of this verse with the same expression in ver. 4, 
and also the other correspondences in the parallel verses 4-6 and 9-11. —7. The 
phrase ἕως ἄρτι seems to be added to the other words as emphatically calling 
attention to the fact, that up to the very moment (and at that moment) when 
the person says this, he is still completely outside of the light-life, and in the 
opposite sphere. On the other hand, the man who loves his brother has a per- 
manent dwelling of the soul in the light. The apparently designed contrast 
between ver. 10 and ver. 11 seems to show that the last clauses of the two 
verses are intended to have a relation to each other. The figure in the closing 
part of ver. 12 is evidently like that in the words used by Jesus in John xii. 35, — 
the traveller who attempts to make his journey in the darkness, and who cannot 
see his pathway before him, and, therefore, does not know whither he is going. 
When the figure is transferred in its application to the spiritual condition of the 
man, of course the darkness belongs to the interior life; and so, in the opposite 
case (ver. 10), it is natural to say that the occasion of stumbling which would 
exist in the other condition does not exist in him. The occasion of stumbling 
is, strictly speaking, as Huther says, that which entices to sin. 


ἡ τ φᾷ iE 
Vv. 12-14. 


1. This passage is apparently of a transitional character in the moveme.it > 
from what precedes towards what follows, or of an introductory character as 
related to what follows. The former is perhaps the better light in which to 
view it. The message which is heard from Christ, and is announced to the 
readers, is that which relates to the light-life (i. 5ff.). The way to the light- 
life is through the forgiveness of sins, and the cleansing by means of the blood 
of Jesus (i. 7, 9, ii. 1f.). In order to the living this. life in the light, we must 
keep the commandments of God (ii. 3ff.). These commandments are, in a 
certain peculiar sense, centered and gathered up in the new command given by 
Jesus Himself, the command to love one another (ii. 7ff.). To the carrying- 
out of this movement out of the darkness into the light, which is thus set 
forth, it is necessary that the love of the world should be put aside (ii. 15 ff.). 
The thought thus passes on continuously from i. 5, to ii.17. In this continuous 
passage is inserted, just before the last section of it, the address, as we may 
call it, to the readers, which covers these verses now under consideration 
(12-14). 

2. In this address to the readers, the following points are especially worthy 
of notice: (a) The classes of persons addressed are the same in the two parts of 
the passage, except so far as the change of the word τεκνία (ver. 12) to παιδία 
(ver. 19 6) may possibly indicate a change of persons. The probability, how- 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 791 


ever, is that no such change is indicated. The correspondence in the other 
cases tends to show that the same persons are intended here. The same thing 
is implied by the use of παιδία in ver. 18, which apparently has the same sense, 
substantially, and is used of the same persons, as τεκνία, in other parts of 
the Epistle. — (Ὁ) The persons intended by these two words are probably the 
whole body of Christian readers, whom the writer addresses. This is indicated, 
Jirst, by the fact that both words, as elsewhere used by this apostle, both in his 
Epistle and his Gospel, have reference to believers, without regard to the 
question of age. It is indicated, secondly, by the fact to which Alford calls 
attention, that the three terms in each case are arranged in an order which is 
neither that of ascending nor descending age —children, fathers, young men. 
—(c) The distinction in meaning between τεκνία and παιδία may lie in the fact, 
. that the former is a word bearing in itself more of the element of tenderness 
or affection. Westcott thinks that the former word carries in it the idea of 
kinsmanship, the latter that of subordination. John speaks in the use of the 
former, he says, as sharing the nature of those to whom he writes; in the use 
of the latter, as placed in a position of authority over them. This is possible, 
but doubtful. Such a distinction can hardly be insisted upon in John xxi. 5, 
as compared with John xiii. 33. Moreover, there would seem to be no special 
reason for such a change of words in these sentences, which convey substantially 
the same idea in all other respects. Perhaps the change is a mere rhetorical 
one. —(d) The two forms of the verb γράφειν (aorist and present) are, not im- 
probably, best explained by Huther. They are substantially repetitions of the 
same thought, as we may believe, in view of the general character of the verses. 
But they are possibly to be accounted for in connection with the epistolary use 
of the aorist, as related to the present, after the manner suggested by Diister- 
dieck; the present referring to the immediate act of writing, the aorist to the 
reader’s act of reading when complete, and both referring to the whole Epistle. 
—(e) There can be no doubt that in the words fathers and young men, the 
apostle intends to address the older and younger members of the Christian 
body. The two classes are included in the term τεκνία or παιδία: these words 
being words of affection, as from an apostle and chief leader of the church. — 
(f) The reasons given for writing, in the several cases, do not pass beyond 
the limits of a ‘particular circle of thought and expression. With respect to the 
τεκνίω and παιδία, we find two expressions: because your sins have been forgiven 
you, and because you know the Father. These two things, the forgiveness of 
sins, and the knowledge of the Father, are connected together, in that the 
former is the entrance-way into the Christian life, and the latter is the essence 
of it (as viewed from the standpoint of John, with reference to the truth that 
God is light) and also in that they both come to the soul through Christ. The 
apostle addresses his letter, which contains that central truth which he had 
himself learned from Christ, to all his Christian readers, because they have 
gained entrance into the new life, and are living in its atmosphere and its light. 
They have already come to the knowledge of God, and are abiding in it. — 
(y) The division into older and younger, which is indicated by πατέρες and veavi- 
oxol, is a not unnatural one, and is suggested in the writings of other N. T. writers. 
If this Epistle was written as late as the year 80 or 90, there must of course 
have been many believers among the Christian company, to whom its author 
was writing, who were advanced in years, as well as many who were young. 
The fathers are spoken of, both in ver. 13 and ver. 14, as knowing τὸν am’ ἀρχῆς. 
There can be no doubt that by this phrase the apostle means Christ. There 


792 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


can be no reasonable doubt, as it would seem, that the words from the beyinning 
have the same sense here as in i. 1, and thus that the eternal existence of the 
Son is referred to. That this knowledge is predicated of the fathers, while 
the young men are spoken of as having overcome or conquered the evil one, is 
in itself an indication that the apostle means by it a full knowledge, such as 
belongs to the fully developed state of the Christian life. It is not merely true, 
‘in their case, that they have overcome the evil one, ahd given the word of God 
an abiding-place in their hearts; but the conflict is long since over, and they are 
now living in the more complete development of the life which consists in the 
knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ His Son.—(h) In the second allusion 
to the young men, two clauses are added: because you are strong, and the word 
of God abides in you. The word strong here denotes spiritual strength, but is 
doubtless connected with the idea of strength as characteristic of youth. ‘‘ The 
young soldier,’’ says Westcott, “is strong as having the personal qualifications 
for his work; and the word of God abideth, etc., so that he is in living contact 
with the source of life.” 


XXX VILL 
Vv. 15-17. 


1. These verses are closely connected with those which precede; and, if the 
explanation suggested above is correct, they form the closing part of the passage, 
in the midst of which vv. 12-14 are inserted by way of transition. To the 
fulfilment of the commands of God, and the great duty of love, —to the carrying 
forward and perfecting of that life which opens with forgiveness, and moves on 
in the sphere of the knowledge of God, —it is essential that the love of the 
world should cease. —2. The world, as the expression is here used, evidently 
means the world conceived of as apart from God, and as drawing away thought 
and love from Him, when it draws thought and love towards itself. This is 
evident from ver. 15), which declares that the love of the world, when dwelling 
in the soul, excludes from the soul the love of God. It is also evident from 
ver. 16. This latter verse indicates, that by the expression: the world, the 
apostle means those things, like the vainglory of life, which especially excite 
the desires of men, and turn them from the service and love of God. It will 
be noticed that ver. 16 is connected with ver. 15 by ὅτι; and thus the fact 
that every thing like the vainglory, etc., is not of the Father, is made a proof 
of what goes before. This relation of the sentences is decisive of the writer’s 
meaning. 

3. The things which the apostle selects as representative of πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ 
are evidently indicative of what is in his mind; but it is scarcely to be supposed 
that he means to cover the whole of worldly human desire by the words, or that 
he is particularly careful to make accurate divisions into kinds or classes of 
desire. His object is rather to make clear to the reader what is the character 
of those things which he refers to under the head of the world. This is not a 
place for critical distinctions, but for combined and total impression. The 
genitives σαρκός and ὀφθαλμῶν are both of them subjective genitives, as Huther 
says, and present the flesh and the eyes as the source of the desires. The flesh 
is the fleshly or carnal nature opposed to God, and is the most general word here 
used. It would seem almost impossible to take the flesh, in this place, in any 
other sense than that in which John uses it, elsewhere, in its contrast to the 
spiritual and divine life. The eyes must be connected with the matter of seeing, 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 199 


and thus the desires here alluded to are those which come from seeing, and they 
are desires for the things seen. The vainglory of life apparently (the word being 
derived from ἀλάζων, which contains the idea of boasting or bragging) seems to 
refer to that pomp, power, distinction of any sort, belonging to the earthly and 
outward life, in connection with which a man becomes filled with pride, and a 
sense of exaltation above others about him. This vainglory of life, and the 
things which are seen by the eye, make up a large share of that which fills 
the hearts and hopes of the men of the world, so far as they are raised above mere 
animal desire and passion. Of this latter sort of desire and passion, the apostle 
is probably not speaking in this passage. His thought is of the life of the soul 
in its higher regions, as we may Say, and his question as to the true life is, 
whether the man is animated by that love which goes out towards God, or, on 
the other hand, by that love which goes out towards the higher (rather than the 
lowest) things which belong to the world. The desire for these higher things 
of the world (and not only that for the lowest) is, as opposed to the love of 
God, the desire of the flesh ; and it is not from (having its source in) the 
Father, but from the world. What is said in these few sentences is presented 
as setting forth what, in the view of the writer of this note, is the true meaning 
and thought of these phrases and of the passage in which they occur. The 
note of Huther is worthy of careful reading. —4. The statement of ver. 17, 
ς And the world is passing away,” is an added thought, simply joined by καὶ 
with what precedes, but it seems to give an additional reason for not loving the 
world and the things in it. The suggestion of Huther, that this expression has 
reference to the thought of the parousia as near at hand, is favored by ver. 18 
and ver. 28, if these verses are to be interpreted as suggesting this thought. If 
the N. T. writers had this idea of the nearness of Christ’s second coming, all 
thoughts of the passing away of the present condition of things must have had 
a peculiarly deep impressiveness to their minds, which, so far as this point is 
concerned, is unknown to us. But whether John had this thought of the near- 
ness of the parousia, or not, we must believe, that to a mind like his, which 
dwelt so much upon the soul’s life, and so little upon the outward life in 
comparison with it, the fact that the world, and the desires to which it gives 
rise, are passing by and passing away, must have been deeply impressive. This 
fact made the great distinction, in his view of the matter, between the inner 
and the outer life, between that Divine friendship into which he had himself 
entered long since, and the giving-up of the soul to the desire of those things 
which are in the world, and which make up, in a sense, the idea of the world. 
—5. The last clause of ver. 17 sets forth the opposite idea to that of the first 
part. But now we have the personal form: He that does the will of God abides 
for ever. In this clause, two points may be noticed: First, that there is a 
return at the end of the paragraph to the idea of doing the commandments of 
God, the sum of what He wills, His will; and, secondly, that the introduction 
of the personal form is most natural here, as the mind of John was dwelling, 
first of all, and last of all, on personal life. Not simply does the doing of God’s 
will lead to eternal life, but he that does it continues in his personal life for 
ever. 


194 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


DOO. B.S 
Vv. 18-25. 


1. At this point, the apostle turns to a warning against the many antichrists 
who have already appeared. The connection of this passage with what goes 
before may be noticed, with reference to the general progress of the thought, 
and also with respect to the immediate relation of the sentences. In the latter 
respect, the connection is evidently with ver.17. The thought of the world 
as passing away leads to the thought of the last hour as present. In the former 
point of view, the exhortation to avoid the love of the world, as essential to 
the fulfilling of the commands of God, easily brings to mind the suggestion of the 
antichrists who impersonate the worldly spirit in its opposition to God. After 
setting forth what the antichrists are, in contrast to the true believers, he urges 
the readers, in the last verses of the chapter, to abide in Christ, and thus to be 
prepared, in their inner life, to meet Him, at His coming, with joy and confi- 
dence, and not with shame. The thought thus moves forward, in a direct 
progress, from the preceding chapter towards the following one. — 2. The 
expression the last hour is kindred to the last days, the end of these days, etc., 
found elsewhere. It has, perhaps, some connection, in John’s use of it, with 
the word ὥρα, which is frequently used in his Gospel, where it refers to the time 
of Christ’s death. This usage of John, as well as the definiteness in the word 
itself, would seem to give the word a more limited and particular reference than 
the other expressions alluded to have, and thus to indicate that the apostle 
looked upon the period or time to which he refers as the final critical season 
before the end. The precise reference will be determined according to the view 
which may be held with respect to the idea of the apostles concerning the time 
of the second coming. If John looked for the coming at an early day, the 
expression the last hour will, of course, have a peculiar force and emphasis. 
Huther takes this view, as also do many other commentators. 

3. The term antichrist occurs only in this Epistle, and the Second Epistle of 
John, but the person or power indicated by it appears elsewhere. As Huther 
remarks, the same person is undoubtedly referred to here, who is spoken of in 
2 Thess. ii. 3 as the man of sin. The reader may be referred to the notes of 
Meyer on 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff., and also to the Additional Notes in the Amer. ed. 
of Meyer, for suggestions on this subject. It is evident from John’s statement, 
as it is from Paul’s, that the N. T. writers either looked upon the antichrist as 
a particular person, or that they personified the enmity and opposition, which, 
arising in and going out from the Church, in the way of apostasy, was, in their 
view, to appear not long before the Lord’s second coming, — the great consum- 
mation of evil in its assault upon the kingdom of God. This great personage, 
or development of evil, was to be immediately preceded, it would seem, by other 
and minor developments in the same line, and preparing the way for it; and 
many of these, the apostle here says, had already appeared. The characteristic 
feature of these many antichrists must be regarded as that which also belongs 
to the one great antichrist himself, namely, the denial that Jesus is the Christ. 
They take the position which is fundamentally opposed to the Christian system 
and doctrine. —4. The appearance of these many immediate precursors of the 
antichrist proves that the last hour has come. The language here used can 
hardly be explained, except by supposing that John believed some great crisis to 
be already at hand, and some great movement or event in the triumph of the 
Divine kingdom to lie in the immediate future, which should, at least in some 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 795 


sense, be the coming of the Lord. This Epistle being written in his advanced 
life, perhaps in his extreme old age, the nearness of the great event was 
impressed deeply upon his mind. The correspondence between this passage and 
Matt. xxiv. 24, ete., seems to indicate what the idea of the apostle was with 
regard to the coming, and that which should precede it. —5. These persons, to 
whom the writer alludes as having already appeared, are declared to have gone 
out from the church. This statement would seem to imply, that, in some 
marked degree and manner, they had separated themselves from the body of 
true believers. The same is indicated. also, by the μεμενήκεισαν of the following 
sentence. —6. The simplest construction of ἀλλ᾽ iva is that which is first given 
by Huther in his note, the ‘va being made dependent on ἐξῆλθαν to be supplied 
after iva. This iva carries with it the idea of the Divine purpose. 

7. Ver. 20 is probably to be taken, with Huther, as preparatory to what 
follows, rather than as in contrast with what precedes, although a certain 
element of contrast may be indicated by ὑμεῖς. The apostle calls the attention 
of the readers to the fact that, as true Christian believers, they have the anoint- 
ing which consists in the gift of the Holy Spirit; and that, being led into all the 
truth by Him, they know all things within its limits. He reminds them, also, 
that of course, as fundamental to the idea of knowing the truth, they know that 
no lie is of the truth. The fact of their possession of this knowledge, not their 
want of it, is the ground of his writing to them respecting the antichrists, etc. 
The holy one mentioned in ver. 20 is probably Christ (John xvi. 7). —8. Ver. 22. 
By the question, Who is the liar ? the apostle presents the central point of oppo- 
sition to the Divine truth, and introduces the attitude of these false teachers 
towards Christ as directly hostile to, and contradictory of, the essential Chris- 
tian teaching. To deny that Jesus is the Christ, is to deny the whole truth of 
Christianity, and to set one’s self outside of the revelation of the eternal life. 
Westcott says, ‘‘The phrase by which St. John describes the master-falsehood 
as the ‘denial that Jesus is the Christ,’ itself marks the progress of Christian 
thought. In the earliest stage of the Church, the words would have expressed 
a denial of the Messiahship of Jesus from the Jewish point of view. They now 
answer to a later form of opinion. A common ‘Gnostic’ theory was that ‘the 
zeon Christ’ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and left Him before 
the passion. Those who held such a doctrine denied that ‘Jesus was the 
Christ;’ and in so denying, denied the union of the Divine and human in one 
person. This heresy St. John signalizes here.’? Undoubtedly, at the time οἵ, 
John’s writing, the foreshadowings, or early beginnings, of Gnosticism, were 
manifest, and against such ideas John directed his words. But the words 
which he here uses contain in themselves, and independent of all changes of 
ideas on the part of adversaries, the fundamental thought of the Christian doc- 
trine: Jesus is the Christ. The man'who denies this, is outside of the Christian 
system. He who, in the full and wide meaning of the word, confesses it, is a 
Christian. —9. The apostle connects this denial that Jesus is the Christ, imme- 
diately with the denial of the Son and the Father. The central and vital relation 
of the belief that Jesus is the Christ, to the union of the soul with God, which 
is the idea of life in the Johannean thought, is brought out in the closing sen- 
tence of ver. 22; and the essential and intimate connection between the confession 
or denial of the Son, and the inward possession of the Father as the life-power 
of the soul, is set forth in ver. 23. In the immediate relation of ver. 23 to 
ver. 22b, the former (ver. 23) is a ground justifying the statement of the latter 
(ver. 220). 


796 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR 


10. These verses, in respect to denial and confession, are followed by an 
exhortation addressed to the readers. The word ὑμεῖς (ver. 24) has the same 
emphasis in the way of contrast as in ver. 20. That which you heard from the 
beginning : This refers evidently, in the connection in which the words stand, 
to that fundamental truth, here alluded to, which had been made known to 
them by the apostle in his preaching; that is, the truth of Jesus as the Christ, 
the Son of God, and of the light-life (the union of the soul with God) as secured 
through believing in Him. He exhorts the readers to let this truth abide within 
them; and assures them that, if it does abide thus, they will themselves abide in 
the Son and in the Father. The relation of the Epistle to the Gospel of John 
is seen in such passages as this. We find, in the Epistle, the doctrine and truth 
as it had dwelt and worked in the writer’s mind; in the Gospel, the sayings of 
Jesus during His lifetime, on which the doctrine rested, and in which it was 
first set forth.—11. The reference in αὕτη of ver. 25, seems to be to the assur- 
ance just given in the verb μενεῖτε: You shall abide in the Son and in the 
Father, if that which you heard from the beginning abides in you. Of this I 
give you a solemn assurance, and I am authorized so to do, for: This permanent 
abiding in the Father and the Son is the very thing which Jesus Himself prom- 
ised us, and the very thing which he meant by eternal life. Interpreted in this 
way, the verse forms a most fitting close to the succession of verses at the end 
of which it stands; and the explanation of the paragraph, or half-paragraph, 
opened by ταῦτα ἔγραψα of ver. 26, is most simple and natural. The break in 
connection, and the necessary supply of something as an intermediate thought, 
which Huther admits as involved in his interpretation (making airy refer to 
ζωὴν αἰώνιον, and the sense to be: “‘ eternal life is the promise which He has given 
us”’), are strong and, as it seems to the writer of this note, decisive arguments 
against Huther’s view. 


XL. 
Vv. 26-28. 


1. These verses form a conclusion to the preceding section, which began 
with ver. 18; and they take up anew, and press upon the mind of the readers, 
the thoughts which have been suggested, —that of the antichrists, that of the 
anointing from the Holy One, that of abiding in Christ, and that of the coming 
of Christ, which follows after ‘“‘the last hour.’? —2. The antichrists are here 
spoken of as of πλανῶντες, that is, they are viewed from the side of their influ- 
ence on the Church, rather than that of their denial that Jesus is the Christ. 
In contrast to them, their attempted work and position, the readers are once 
more spoken of with reference to the anointing with the Holy Spirit which they 
had received. As this impartation of the Spirit, and the guidance into the 
knowledge of the truth, which results from it, remain with them as their perma- 
nent possession, they do not need to be taught by another teacher; they only 
need to be reminded of the fact of the appearance and working of the anti- 
christs, that they may see them in their true character, and may refuse to yield 
to their misleading influence. On the contrary, as this anointing which comes 
by the gift of Christ, i.e., the Holy Spirit, teaches them with that complete and 
perfect truthfulness in which there is no intermingling at all of what is false, 
they will surely abide in Christ, not being led astray from Him. The entire 
part of the sentence following ἀλλά of ver. 27, from ὡς to ἐδίδαξεν, is to be regarded | 
as the protasis, μενεῖτε being the apodosis, and the simplest explanation of the 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 797 


καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν is, that it is added to indicate that what is continually taught by 
the anointing is the same thing which was taught from the beginning, from the 
time when the gift of the Spirit was first made. —3. As to the question of 
the reading at the end of ver. 27, — whether weveire or μένετε, ---- the oldest 
authorities are unanimous in favor of the latter, and it is now generally adopted. 
If this is the true text, the verb is to be regarded, with Huther, as an indicative, 
The apostle affirms in this verse, and exhorts in the next. He affirms here 
(making his statement in a general present), as true of the readers, that which 
must necessarily, and will certainly, be true of them when they are viewed as 
fully possessed of the Spirit, and under His teaching and guiding influence. 
--- 4. The μένετε of ver. 28 is clearly an imperative; for the apostle now turns to 
an exhortation, with a view to the result which he hopes for in the future, 
iva, k.7.A, —5. The weight of authorities is such that we must adopt ἐάν, rather 
than ὅταν, as the true reading; and this reading may perhaps indicate that the 
apostle thought of the coming as possibly, or not improbably, near at hand, — 
in case it takes place while we are still in the earthly life, to which the exhor- 
tation μένετε applies. It may, however, be only the ἐών which merely puts the 
supposition in a less positive form than εἰ, 


XLI. 
VER. 29—CHAPTER III. 10a. 


1. Huther and many commentators think that a new leading section of the 
Epistle begins with ver. 29, and this seems to be the fact. The new life is 
the life of righteousness. This thought has been suggested before, in connec- 
tion with the keeping of the commandments of God. The special development 
of righteousness in the matter of love to one’s brother has also been hinted at. 
But the apostle now proceeds to a more direct and full unfolding of the idea, 
and connects it with the thought of the sonship to God, in which the Christian 
grows continually more and more into the Divine likeness. —2. If ye know that 
he is righteous: This conditional sentence takes up the idea of knowing the 
truth, which has been predicated of the Christian, and puts forth a funda- 
mental element of this knowledge. In case you know this fundamental truth, 
says the apostle,—and this you should and must know, if you are truly 
taught by the Holy Spirit, — you also know (or, taking the verb as an impera- 
tive, know ye, be assured) that every one that doeth righteousness is begotten 
of Him, The light-life in man springs from, and is in the likeness of, the light- 
life in God. This sentence contains, thus, a statement and declaration which 
the writer makes the foundation of what he has to urge upon the readers in the 
following verses, 


CHAPTER III. 


3. Following upon the declaration of the truth, that the one who does right- 
eousness is begotten of God (ii. 29), we find an expression of wonder and 
thankfulness in view of the love of God, which gives to man this relation to 
Himself. This is the substance of ver. 1, when it is viewed with reference 
to its words and the form of the sentence; and to give expression to these 
feelings, was undoubtedly the primary object in writing the words. But in the 
development of the main thought, in its progress from ver. 29 onward, this 


798 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


verse calls attention to the fact that we are children of God, as preparatory to 
the setting-forth of the idea of our growth, as children, into the complete 
likeness of God. And this idea is presented with especial reference to the end, 
when the consummation shall be realized, in order that the legitimate influence 
of the hope of this consummation on the growth of the soul in righteousness, 
and its movement away from sin, may be pressed upon the reader. —4. The 
character of the expression, as one of wonder and thankfulness, is distinctly 
seen in its form and words. The desire to give forth such an expression deter- 
mines the abruptness of the sentence, and the use of ἔδετε, The use of τέκνα, 
instead of υἱός, which occurs also elsewhere in John, is natural here, because the 
idea is related immediately to the γεγέννηται of ii. 29. Comp. Johni. 12. It is 
the child-relationship, which is connected with birth, that is at the foundation of 
this whole passage. —5. The word called here does not signify, to have the name 
of, without being in reality what we are called; but it means simply that we 
have this name bestowed upon us. The emphasis on the ἐσμεν, for the purpose 
of which it is added to the sentence, is not, therefore, that of being, as opposed 
to being called without being, but that of confident affirmation of the fact, on 
the foundation of which the name is given to us. —6. The last sentence of ver. 1 
corresponds with thoughts and statements contained in Christ’s language, as 
given in the Gospel of John. This sentence, though not expressed in the form 
directly adapted to this end, really sets forth a confirmation of the truth of the 
καί ἐσμεν. That we are the children of God, is proved by the fact that the sinful 
world, which lives in the sphere of the darkness, does not recognize and appre- 
hend us in our life, as it did not recognize and apprehend Him. This incapacity 
of the world to apprehend our life, shows that we have a life outside of its 
sphere, — the light-life, which is beyond the limits of the darkness. 

7. The word αὐτόν must, almost necessarily, refer to God, because of the 
connection with the preceding sentence. This word seems likewise to govern, 
by its meaning and reference, the words αὐτῷ, αὐτόν, and ἐκεῖνος in vv. 2, 3, and 
also to determine the question as to the subject of φανερωθῇ of ver. 2, —at least, 
if that verb should be understood as having a personal subject, which is 
probably the correct view. All these words must point to God, not Christ. 
The true explanation of this matter is, as we may believe, after the following 
manner: The underlying thought of the Epistle, as we have seen, is that of the 
life of the human soul as coming into the likeness of, and participation in, 
the life of God, —the life in which there is no darkness at all. The turning 
of the soul towards the growth of its life into and in this likeness is, therefore, 
what is constantly before the writer’s mind. The eternal life is this life in 
likeness to, and union with God. Géd is thus the one who occupies the central 
and first place in the whole development of the thought. Christ is the one who 
brings the message respecting this life of God, and reveals it. It is through 
Christ that we attain to the life, by believing in Him, and imitating Him, and 
growing into His likeness. But the consummation at the end, like the first 
beginning, is the possession of the life of God, the light-life. This life is to be 
perfected, we know not precisely in what manner, through the clearer and more 
perfect manifestation of God, which will take place hereafter, and through the 
fact that, by seeing Him as He is, we shall become in the more perfect sense 
like Him. God is thus naturally the one who is made most prominent every- 
where; and He is, for the reason indicated, presented as the subject of thought 
here. The word φανερωθῇ, which, under ordinary circumstances, would more 
naturally be used of the manifestation of Christ, as in ii. 28, is thus here used 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 799 


with reference to God. The revelation of the future is, according to the 
underlying thought of the Epistle, the revelation and manifestation of God. 

8. The use of the verb φανερωθῇ is to be observed in its connection with 
ἐφανερώθη of the preceding sentence, and φανερωθῇ of ii. 28. Its connection 
with the former may be regarded as showing that the idea of clear revelation 
is contained in it, and its connection with the latter apparently suggests the 
thought that this clear revelation will be made, or at least begin, at the parou- 
sia. The employment of the word to denote the more complete manifestation 
of God, as the fulness of the light-life, is readily accounted for in the light of 
this relation to the context. — 9. Huther, Haupt, Alford, and other commenta- 
tors, regard τί ἐσόμεθα (it) as the subject of φανερωθῇ. This would correspond 
with the subject of the preceding ἐφανερώθη, but the sense of the passage would 
thus seem not to be in accordance with the suggestion of the context. This 
suggestion is, that hereafter we shall be like Him: this we know, although we 
do not know precisely what we shall be. To make this knowledge, or this 
likeness, dependent on the fact of the making manifest to us precisely what we 
shall be, is outside of the line of thought, and such an idea would seem to carry 
an improbability in itself. The whole progress of the Christian life, in J ohn’s 
idea of it, is one thing, the development in the likeness of God. The future is 
not to be different from the present, except in the circumstances of the living, 
and the measure of the development. We know, therefore, that our life is to 
be this development, independently of any future manifestation as to precisely 
what we shall be. — The thought, then, which fills the apostle’s mind and heart, 
is this: that we are children of God, and are to be so forever. We do not know, 
indeed, what may be our condition in every respect, or what precisely we shall 
be in the future time, which is beyond the limits of the present life; but we do 
(now) know that, if He shall be manifested, we shall be like Him in the more 
full and complete sense, for we shall see Him more fully and completely as He 
is. —10. The particle viv of ver. 2 is the temporal particle, the now being 
contrasted with the future indicated by the not yet. The fact that we are now 
children of God is the great fact which carries with it the essential life of the 
future, leaving only the question as to precisely what we shall be, in our new 
condition and circumstances hereafter, in uncertainty. —11. The likeness to 
God, of which the apostle speaks, must be realized in the soul of the one who, 
being already a child of God, shall hereafter see Him as He is, for he has within 
him that principle of life which only needs the seeing in order to the likeness. 
In this way John himself, as we see in his Gospel, grew into the likeness of 
Jesus by seeing Him, and so into the likeness of God. The seeing is repre- 
sented as the condition, not the consequence, of the likeness, and this represen- 
tation accords with the Johannean idea throughout. —12. The question raised 
by some writers as to the possibility of seeing God the Father, as connected 
with the words: No man hath seen or can see God,—is one which does not 
properly arise here. The expressions have reference to that spiritual compre- 
hension of the light-life of God, which is, according to all indications in the 
N. T., revealed in heaven to the saints. As Alford says, ‘The incapacity to 
behold the Creator,’”’ in the sense in which this incapacity is declared in some 
passages kindred to the one referred to, ‘‘ does not prevent the vision, as far as 
it can reach, being clear and unclouded; being, to the utmost extent of which 
our glorified nature is capable, ὡς ἐστίν, a true and not a false vision of God.” 

18. Ver. 3 forms a transition from vv. 1, 2, to ver. 5 ff., and thus brings the 
thought back to the opening of this section, ii. 29. The hope of such a sight of 


800 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


God, and such a likeness to Him, naturally works in every one who has it, to the 
end of making him purify himself, that is to say, cleanse himself from every 
polluting power and influence, and bring himself more and more into the likeness 
of the Divine purity. —14. Καθὼς ἐκεῖνος dyvog ἐστιν. The word ἐκεῖνος here is 
referred by [luther and most interpreters to Christ. This corresponds with 
ii. 6, where there is a similar change of pronouns, αὐτός and ἐκεῖνος, There would 
seem to be no serious difficulty in supposing that the writer turns in his thought 
here from God to Christ (indicating the change of subject by the change of 
pronouns), and particularly when it is considered that the revelation of God's 
purity is in and through Christ, in so far as it is made to the man who is 
purifying himself during the period of the hope spoken of. The close relation 
of Christ to God, and the fact that Christ reveals the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, must be borne 
in mind in all our interpretation of passages like this. No doubt, the author 
passed without difficulty from the one thought to the other, and had in his mind, 
as a combined idea, God in Christ, so that he could easily make one prominent at 
one time, and, not long afterwards, give a similar prominence to the other. It 
is in this way, if the explanation advocated above is correct, that the author's 
thought passes, in connection with the verb gavepow, from Christ, as the subject 
in ii. 28, to God, as the subject in iii. 2, and again to Christ in iii. 5. Such 
changes are incidental to the development of the thoughts which form the basis 
of the Epistle, and are specially characteristic of this author. — 15. The object 
of ver. 4 ff., as related to the verses immediately preceding, is to give prominence 
to the idea of the necessity of purifying one’s self, as set forth in ver. 3, by 
presenting the incompatibility of the opposite course with that seeing and 
knowing the Divine life, as manifested in Christ, which is the essence of the 
light-life. As related to ii. 29, these verses, 4 ff., add emphasis to the thought 
which underlies that verse, — namely, that righteousness is necessary to the idea 
of sonship to God, — by showing what the opposite of righteousness is, and the 
irreconcilability of this opposite with the character of Christ, and the life in 
Him. The verses have thus a twofold relation; but, in each of the two 
connections, they express substantially the same idea, and point to the same 
end, —16. The word ἀνομία, as here employed, means violation of law, and the 
law which the apostle has in mind is, apparently, that law of God which is 
universal in its application, and is designed to govern the whole man and the 
whole life. It is not the Mosaic law, but, so far as related to that law, it is 
the Mosaic law spiritualized, i.e., carried into the inmost feelings and thoughts 
of the soul, and extended over every movement of the inner man. It is the law 
which sets forth the idea of righteousness given by Christ in Matt. v. 17 ff., and 
elsewhere in His teachings. Sin is violation of this law, and every one who 
“does sin,’’ instead of ‘doing righteousness,” does what is a violation of it. 
A man who does sin, therefore, — who violates the divinely given law of life, — 
cannot be begotten of God in the spiritual sense; he cannot be a child of God. 
1τ, Ver. 5 is introduced as confirming what is said in the preceding verse, 
by calling the readers’ attention to the fundamental and well-known truth of 
Christ’s mission in this regard, and also of His personal life. And you know, 
the apostle says. The and connects this well-known fact with the proposition 
of the preceding verse, which rests upon the contrariety of sin and righteousness. 
He was manifested, ete., —the very object of His appearance in the flesh, and 
of the manifestation of God in Him, was that He might take away sins; and 
His character was in complete consistency with His work, —in Him was no sin. 
—18. The relation of ver. 6 to ver. 5, though it is not expressed in this way by 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. . 801 


an inferential particle, such as οὖν, is that of a conclusion. If sin is violation of 
the Divine law, and if Christ came to take away sins, and in Him personally sin 
had no dwelling-place, it follows that the one who abides in Him does not sin, 
and, on the other hand, that the one who sins does not abide in Him, — has not 
even seen Him, or known Him. This is true of every one, in each of the two 
opposite cases. — The relation of the verbs see and know is probably to be 
explained in accordance with what has been already indicated as the thought of 
John. As he himself lived in the society and friendship of Jesus and came to 
know Him, in the true sense, by seeing Him (and thus the seeing and knowing 
have reference to the inward life of Jesus); so his idea of the knowledge of 
Christ, and of God, is the idea of a knowledge which comes from the contem- 
plation of the Divine life. The man who sins—so far is he from abiding in 
“Christ — has not even seen Him in this inward and true sense, and has not 
attained, as yet, to that knowledge of Him which comes by seeing, and is 
essential to abiding. —19. After the development of the thought thus far, the 
apostle returns to the thought of ii. 29, pressing it still more solemnly upon 
their attention: Little children, let no man lead you astray in this matter; 
the man who doeth righteousness, and he only, is righteous. The inward life 
must put forth its vital energy and force in the doing of righteousness; if it does 
not, it is not, in John’s view, the true inward life at all. Much as he dwelt upon 
the inner life, and much as he dwelt within his own inner life, he contemplated 
it only as a life having in itself this vital energy. And so he again sets forth the 
negative statement corresponding with this positive one, that he may give the 
latter yet more emphasis, — he that doeth sin is of the Devil. — 20. Even as He 
is righteous. The comparison here is probably with reference to the reality of 
righteous character and living, and not to the measure and degree of righteous- 
ness. The man who does righteousness has the life-principle of righteousness 
within him, even as God has. The man who “ does sin,”’ on the other hand, is 
of the Devil; that is, his inner life-principle has its origin in the Devil, who, in 
his whole life, moves and acts in the sphere of sin even from the beginning. 

21. The last clause of ver. 8 is added as impressing the thought still further: 
The very purpose for which the Son of God was manifested was, that He might 
destroy the works of the Devil. The Christian idea of righteousness must, 
therefore, be in accordance with what has been said in this passage. — 22. The 
statement of ver. 9a is substantially what has been previously indicated, but it 
is put in the reverse order. This new order of arrangement is due, no doubt, to 
the statement of ver. 8a. As the one who commits sin is of the Devil, so he 
who is begotten of God does not commit sin. The fundamental cause of this 
not sinning is presented in the ὅτε clause; it is because the life-giving principle 
received from God, which is exclusive of sin and which is the principle of right- 
eousness, abides in such aman. If it does not dwell in him, the divinely given 
life is not there. And, as showing this more emphatically, the words are added: 
And he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. The cannot here is that 
which appertains to the new life within the man; so far as that life and life- 
principle are concerned, the continuance of sin is impossible. This is the very 
fact and ground on which the question, who are the children of God, and who are 
the children of the Devil, is determined. The sin-destroying life element in the 
former, and its outworking into action, make manifest the child-relationship to 
God. The absence of all this, and the presence of the opposite, show forth the 
similar relationship to the Devil. 


802 § ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XLII. 
Vv. 10b=24, 


1. The additional idea fotind in this passage is brotherly love. As he desires 
to speak of this particularly, the apostle unites it with what precedes by 
repeating, in the negative form, the proposition just made respecting righteous- 
ness, whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ; and then adds — concen- 
trating thereby, tipon this point, the main thought of the reader— and he who 
loveth not his brother. Brotherly love, therefore, is given the same prominence 
in the great matter of righteousness here as in chap. ii. (comp. ii. 7-11). —2. Ver. 
11 gives the proof of ver. 10): Because, ete. It is because this is the message 
sent from God to men in and through Jesus Christ, —the Divine message which 
the readers had heard from the beginning. The readers had heard this message or 
announcement as a continuous tradition, and as a fact of the Christian preaching 
ever since the evening of the Last Supper, when Jesus uttered these words in 
the presence of the eleven faithful disciples. The message which the writer and 
his fellow-apostles had heard from Jesus, as the incarnate Logos revealing the 
ζωὴ αἰώνιος, was that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. The central 
element of the light-life is love. In the sphere of righteousness, therefore, 
which is the outworking and result of the light-life, love is the primary thing; 
the command to love one another is (ii. 7-11) the sum of all commandments. 
The man who does not have brotherly love, therefore, is truly declared to be no 
child of God, because he has not taken into himself the foundation-message 
from heaven, in this its central element. He is animated by an opposite spirit, 
and inspired by an opposite life-principle, after the manner of Cain. The 
Divine message is not of such a feeling, or action, as this: not as Cain was 
of the evil one, and slew his brother. To this statement is added the reason of 
the slaying; or, if we express it in other words, the life-principle out of which 
the act sprang is set forth as showing the complete contrast to the life-principle 
of which the message speaks. Cain’s works were evil, Abel’s righteous; by 
reason of this fact, recognized by the former, the hatred which ended in murder 
entered his soul. 

3. The verses 10a-12 inclusive are introductory to 13 ff., in which the matter 
of brotherly love is presented in its wider relations and contrasts. The hatred 
of the world is a thing to be expected, and not to be wondered at; for the life- 
principle in the world is the same with that which was in this first murderer of 
the O. T. history. This life-principle will inevitably work out into feeling and 
action; it will lead to hatred of the brother, and thus to that which lies at the 
basis of the act of murder; and it will lead to such hatred, because the works of 
those who have this life-principle are evil, while those of the men who have 
the divine life-principle are righteous, and because this fact is recognized by the 
world. So true is this, and so little reason is there for wonder at the world’s 
hatred, that, on the other hand, the very ground of our knowledge that we have 
passed out of death, darkness, the sphere of the world, into the light, is the 
fact that love of the brethren has found its dwelling-place in our hearts. So 
soon as this, love thus finds its dwelling-place within us, we have passed out of 
death into life; the result is already accomplished; the eternal life is begun. 
The apostle emphasizes his thought here, as in other places, by repeating it in 
different forms: He that loveth not abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his 
brother is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 803 


in hin. —4. The fact, that, in the story in Genesis, the reason for the murder 
indicated in ver. 12 is not distinctly set forth, need occasion no difficulty here. 
The mere facts are given in the O. T. record. The historian had this as his 
object. But the apostle, with his tendency to penetrate the inward life, goes 
beneath the facts and the act to discover the cause, and this becomes plain to 
him as he looks for it in and through the facts. What he thus does with respect 
to the case of Cain is in accordance with that penetration into the heart which is 
manifested in ver. 15. It is also akin to that which Jesus does as He carries the 
several provisions of the Mosaic system, in the Sermon on the Mount, into their 
application to the earliest and inmost feeling of the soul, which finally develops 
into the outward act. 

5. In ver. 16, the passage passes to a new half-paragraph, and the writer 
declares that we reach our knowledge, our true apprehension of love, in the, 
sphere of the fact that Christ laid down His life for us. This greatest mani- 
festation of love shows what love is; and the movement of the Christian life, 
when we see this manifestation, and learn the lesson of it, is to imitate the 
love thus exhibited, and, in this way, to make it truly and effectively our own. 
—6. The true explanation of the words, we ought to lay down our lives for the 
brethren, is to be found in connection with the seventeenth verse, which speaks 
of having compassion upon and helping those who are in need. The highest 
possible exhibition of love is placed in close connection with one of the common 
cases of ordinary life; and we must believe that this is in order to cover, as it 
were, the whole sweep of love; not to make laying down one’s life for another 
a frequent duty, or a test of love, but to point, with emphasis, from this possible 
duty of extreme self-sacrifice to the urgent and constant duty of self-sacrifice 
and loving service in the minor things. 

7. We may believe that there is a close connection of thought between the 
end of ver. 17 and the first part of ver. 16. If Christ, who came into the world 
to reveal the Divine life and life-principle, gave the great and final manifestation 
of them by laying down His life for us, it must be impossible that in the heart of 
him who has not even the compassion referred to in ver. 17, the love of God 
can have found its dwelling-place. The love of God is understood here by 
Huther to mean love to God; so Haupt, Alford, and others. This view is 
supported by iv. 20. Westcott regards it as ‘‘the love of which God. is at once 
the object, and the author, and the pattern.”’ If we are to consider the present 
context only, it would seem to the writer of this note that the genitive θεοῦ is 
rather subjective, than objective. God’s love, which was manifested in Jesus, 
in the act of laying down His life for men, cannot be in the heart which is 
compassionless. The apostle is here entering into the principles of things. He 
is penetrating the centre of the Christian life in its opposition to the world’s life. 
It would appear to be natural under these circumstances that he should consider 
whether God’s love—the Divine love-principle—has its abode in the heart. 
But it may be that iv. 20 is decisive. 

8. The exhortation of ver. 18, which evidently has a certain degree of inde- 
pendence, is naturally enough connected with the words of ver. 17. The next step 
beyond the closing of the heart there indicated, is the giving expression in words, 
yet in words only, to the feeling of compassion or of love in its other outgoings. 
But this, again, is not the love which springs from the Divine life-principle. 
There must be a manifestation of love in act, when such action is calied for. 
The addition of γλώσσῃ to λόγῳ is partly due to the desire for greater emphasis, 
as we may believe; but the suggestion of Huther may be regarded as ako giving 


804 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


a part of the true reason for it; namely, that it is ‘‘epexegetically added, in 
order to mark the externality of the love, inasmuch as it points out that by λόγος 
here only the outward word is meant.” The word truth is added to deed, no 
doubt, because the writer wished to emphasize the fact, and to place it, as we 
may say, distinctly before the reader’s eye, that love is love in truth only when 
it has within itself the active force; just as faith works on its love side, or, if not, 
is a dead faith. 9. The weight of manuscript authority favors the future γνωσό- 
μεθα in ver. 19, and this accords with πείσομεν, which is probably to be explained 
as a co-ordinate verb, the two clauses being parallel. The future is that of con- 
clusion, as Huther remarks, — the condition being that which is suggested by év 
τούτῳ, which phrase refers to the thought of the preceding verse. The verb 
γνωσόμεθα may be used here as equivalent to οἴδαμεν of ver. 14, or it may carry 
in it the idea of reaching the knowledge by a process of thought. Westcott says 
it is “‘the knowledge which comes through outward experience,” and is ‘‘in 
contrast with the knowledge which belongs to the idea of faith,’’ ver. 14 
(οἴδαμεν). 

10. The relation of ver. 20 to ver. 19 has been a matter of much discussion, 
The simplest construction, as it seems to the writer of this note, is that which 
is adopted by R. V. for the text: namely, that which places a comma after 
πείσομεν, and joins the following ὅτι with ἐάν, making these two words equivalent 
to as to whatever or whereinsoever. This explanation of 67 éav accords with 
Col. iii. 17, as Huther holds, in accordance with most of the best authorities. 
The explanation of ὅτε as because, involves a double because in the two clauses, 
the second being a mere repetition of the first, which is highly improbable. The 
same difficulty occurs if we explain ὅτε as that. — With the explanation given, it 
appears altogether probable that the sentence is to be interpreted as suggesting 
the thought of God’s mercy and forgiveness. The meaning of the apostle 
seems, accordingly, to be this: By the fact of our having love in deed and truth, 
we come to the knowledge that we are of the truth, and we are enabled to assure 
or convince our hearts before God, whereinsoever our heart may condemn us, 
because (we know that) God is greater than our hearts, and knows all things. 
Love is the fulfilment of the law, the fulfilment of the command which gathers 
up into itself all others. If we have love, therefore, we are assured that God, 
who knows all things, knows the existence of this all-fulfilling and satisfying 
principle within us, and thus knows that we are of the truth, even though our 
own hearts may accuse us of occasional sins or failures. —11. Regarding the 
above as the true explanation of vy. 19, 20, the explanation of ver. 21 will be 
affected or determined by it. This verse must be viewed rather as the converse 
of the preceding, while the main thought yet moves on in the same line, than as 
the direct reverse or opposite of that main thought. Two suppositions are made 
—one of the case where the heart accuses or condemns; the other, of the case 
where it does not. In the former case, we may assure our hearts, because God 
sees farther and more deeply than they do; He knows all things, and knows the 
existence of the love-force within us. In the latter case, on the other hand, we 
have the boldness of confidence, —not needing to assure ourselves only by the 
thought, that God penetrates into the depths of the life to discover the vital 
principle, — and, boldly asking, we receive what we ask. The conception of 
the apostle thus seems to be that of the existence of love in both classes or 
conditions of which he speaks; but, in the one case, there is a consciousness 
of shortcomings, while, in the other, a fulfilment of all obligations, and a con- 
sciousness of this fact, are supposed. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 805 


12. In ver. 25, the writer makes a new turn in the thought. He moves 
backward, as we may say, to the foundation principle of the Christian life, 
namely, faith. Faith works through love. The entrance or doorway into the 
light-life is faith. That this is John’s idea, as truly as it is Paul’s, is made 
manifest both in his Gospel and in this Epistle. As he began his own Chris- 
tian course by believing Jesus to be the Christ, so he places believing at the 
beginning for every disciple of Jesus and every child of God. ‘The right to 
become children of God”’ is given ‘‘to those who believe’? —such is his doc- 
trine. Here faith is spoken of as God’s commandment, because the thought 
has been upon the fulfilling of the commandments, in the preceding context. 
It is, in the deep sense in which this author uses -his language, and in relation 
to the essential life of the soul, ἃ commandment; that is, the expression of 
God’s will that the light-life should be entered by means of that outgoing of the 
soul towards God which is the necessary condition of all experience of the light- 
life. Faith is the commandment of God, the summing-up of the commandments 
of God; as in the Gospel of John (vi. 28, 29), when the multitude asked Jesus 
what they must do to work the works of God, the answer was: This is the work 
of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent. —13. The expression, 
believe the name, etc., is found only in this place, and is to be explained in 
accordance with the fact that the name is regarded, in the scriptural usage, as the 
representative before others of. the person — that by which the person is made 
known. —14. The words love one another are introduced in ver. 23 because 
they contain the thought which has pervaded the preceding context. The true 
view of the verse is, not that these words are added to the expression respecting 
faith, but that the writer, still keeping his mind upon love, goes back to that 
foundation principle which displays its energy through love, and thus adds the 
thought of this, which had not been previously set forth.—15. In ver. 24, 
the writer returns once more to the idea of abiding in him, which has been made 
so prominent, and declares that he who keeps the commandments, which are 
summed up in faith and love, thus abides. This abiding is also a dwelling of 
God in the believer, and the assurance of this is given in the gift of the Spirit, 
which had been made to all believers. 


7: 
CHAPTER IV. 
Vy. 1-6. 


1, The thought turns again, at the beginning of the fourth chapter, to the 
false prophets or antichrists. This seems to be suggested or occasioned by 
the reference to the Holy Spirit, in iii. 24, as the evidence within the believer 
of his abiding life in God. The verse mentioned is the first one in which the 
Holy Spirit is alluded to in the Epistle; and as He is placed in such a relation 
to the knowledge of the believer respecting his union with God, it is natural 
that the reader’s mind should be directed, at this point, to the importance of 
testing and determining whether the Holy Spirit is the one which indeed dwells 
within him. We find an exhortation given, accordingly, which is kindred to 
the one hinted at by Paul in 1 Cor. xii. 1-3, and possibly also in 1 Thess. 
v. 19-21. It is noticeable, also, that the confession of Jesus Christ is made the 
decisive test here, as in 1 Corinthians, though the confession is carried more 
definitely to the point of His having come in the flesh. This is, doubtless, due 


806 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


to the particular false doctrine against which John was contending; perhaps, 
as Huther thinks, it was the Cerinthian Docetism.—2. The central truth, the 
denial of which is the evidence of the spirit of Antichrist, is declared by 
the apostle to be the truth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, When we 
pass into the depths of the Johannean thought, and beyond and beneath the 
oppositions to, or of, the particular adversaries whom he may have had in mind, 
we may believe that this truth was central to his apprehension, because Jesus as 
come in the flesh, the Divine Logos as manifested in the person of this Divine 
man, was the revelation of the light-life of God in our human life. The way of 
access to that light-life was only by seeing this revelation as thus made, and 
by imitating and growing into the likeness of the life thus exhibited. To deny 
this central truth, was therefore, in his view, to place one’s self in antagonism 
to Christianity and to Christ Himself. Whoever did so, as a prophet or teacher, 
became thereby, as it were, an antichrist. The antichrist would be but the full 
development of such denial and antagonism, the complete manifestation of the 
spirit which each one of such prophets and teachers showed forth in himself. It 
is a most striking fact, and one most suggestive to the candid reader of John’s 
writings (the Gospel and Epistle alike), that whenever we reach the innermost 
recess of his thinking, and of his own soul’s life as displayed in his thought, we 
find that the reality of Jesus’ earthly life (His life as a man and a friend, who bas 
in Himself the life of God to reveal to the world) is the central and fundamental 
thing. It was thus central and fundamental to his thought, —and this is the 
only explanation which can be given when we view all the phenomena, — because 
he had himself lived with Jesus, had seen in Him the revelation of the Divine 
light-life, had grown into the light-life by contemplating Him and imitating 
Him, had sat at His feet, and had learned of Him by drawing into his own soul 
the influence which came from the soul of Jesus. —3. Vv. 1-3 set forth the 
means of testing the spirits, so far as the confession of Christ is concerned. 
Vv. 46, on the other hand, give the means of testing them by the character of 
their teachings, and of those who accept their teachings. We find in these 
latter verses the same thought which is clearly presented in John’s Gospel. 
The one who knows God, and is susceptible to the influence of the Divine truth, 
accepts it when it is presented. He hears those who proclaim this truth. 
Those who: belong to the world, on the contrary, hear the teachers who are 
of the world. By the character of those who listen joyfully and receptively to 
the teaching which is given, the character of the teaching itself may be deter- 
mined, whether it is of God or of the world. By this means we are enabled to 
know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.—4. The spirit of error or of 
truth, therefore, is tested and proved by the answer to two questions: first, 
whether the confession made by it is, or is not, the confession that Jesus Christ 
is come in the flesh; and secondly, whether those who are animated by the 
principles of the world, or by Divine principles, receive its teachings with 
readiness into their lives. 

5. These last three verses (4-6) are introduced by the words, Ye are of God. 
These words seem to have a connection of thought with the words of ver. 1, 
and are thus placed with emphasis at the beginning of the new verses, partly as 
giving a strong ground why the Christian readers should not believe every spirit, 
but test them as to whether they are of God. You should thus test before you 
believe, because you are of God. Partly, however, we are to account for these 
words as connected with the contrasts of the three verses themselves, and they 
are placed emphatically at the beginning, as making prominent at the outset 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 807 


the position of the Christian believers. —6. The connection of vv. 4-6 with 
what precedes is confirmed by the words, and have overcome them, etc. These 
words carry back the reader’s mind necessarily to the last part of ver. 1. The 
verb νενικήκατε reminds us of the last words of Jesus (John xvi. 33) addressed to 
His disciples at the supper. Huther seems to be correct in his view of this verb, 
that it signifies not merely that the Christian readers had the strength of Christ 
as a mighty force within them, or that they were sure of final success; but that 
they had already overpowered the false prophets by their Christian fidelity, their 
faith and love. Huther is also correct in making ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν refer to God, rather 
than Christ.—7. It is probable that ἡμεῖς of ver. 6 refers to the apostolic teachers, 
because of the change from the second person (ὑμεῖς) in ver. 4 to the first person 
here. This view is confirmed by the word ἀκούει which follows. If this be 
correct, ἡμεῖς are the teachers, who, being heard and accepted in their teachings 
by the ὑμεῖς who are ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, are shown to be themselves ἐκ Tov θεοῦ. 


XLIV. 
Vv. 7-164. 


1. Beginning with ver. 7, the apostle develops more fully than before, 
throughout the remainder of this chapter, and the earlier part of the next, the 
relation of love and faith to the light-life. This is presented in iii. 23, as 
the idea and essence of the commands of God, and now it is unfolded at length. 
While in one sense, therefore, no new leading thought is brought forward in 
the section which is now opened, there is a progress and development which 
add to the impressiveness of the Epistle. Beginning with ver. 7, and ending 
with v. 12, we have one section which is divided into two parts, iv. 7-21 and 
y. 1-12, the former treating of love, and the latter of faith. —2. Ver. 7 opens 
with the exhortation to love one another; the exhortation, that is, to fulfil that 
one of the two things presented as making up the commandment of God, to 
which Jesus called the thought of the apostles on the last evening of His life, 
and the allusion to which is found in the closing words of iii. 23. 

3. The ground on which the exhortation is urged is, that love is of God. 
The preposition é« denotes the source; the love-principle has its origin in God, 
and, as a consequence, the presence of love in a man’s heart is the proof that 
he is spiritually begotten of God, and has the true spiritual knowledge of God. 
On the other hand, where love is absent, this true knowledge of God is absent. 
In connection with this latter statement, the ground on which it is affirmed is 
given, —a repetition of that mentioned in ver. 7, and yet put in a stronger 
form: God is love. Not only has love its source and fountain in Him, but the 
very essence of His own life is love. As in chap. i. 5, it is said that God is 
light, so here it is said that He is love ; and this is a fitting expression, as in ἃ 
sense equivalent to the former one, because the light-life is animated by the 
principle of love. —4, Having presented the thought that love is of God and 
that God is love, the writer now turns to the setting-forth of the way in which 
God has manifested His love, and of the evidence thus given that the source of 
love is in God Himself. The words ἐν ἡμῖν are most naturally connected with 
ἐφανερώθη; and they convey the idea that there was not only a display of God’s 
love to us, or before our minds, but within us, so that it became a manifestation 
to and in the inmost life of the soul. The fact that God has sent His only 
begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him, is the great fact 


808 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


which John tries to prove in his Gospel, by a record of the words and works of 
Jesus, and also the great fact on which his own inner life rested. It was 
natural, therefore, that, in addressing his Christian readers, he should say, 
‘‘ was manifested in us.’? —5. The thought of the tenth verse seems to be this: 
that love proves its divine origin by this manifestation. The sending of the 
Son to be the propitiation for our sins, is an indubitable proof that love, as it 
appertains to Christian thought, does not begin in us as loving God, but in God 
as loving us. —6. But if God manifests such love to us, if such love comes 
forth from the Divine source of love, the exhortation certainly presents itself 
with most impressive force, —we ought to love one another. The passage con- 
taining the exhortation thus rounds itself into completeness at the end. — 
7. The twelfth verse evidently makes an abrupt turn, and yet the general thought 
of the section seems to move on to the close of the chapter. We may believe 
the idea of the apostle to be this: that while the sight of God is and has ever 
been denied to men, there is an inward apprehension of Him, —such an inti- 
mate union with Him that we abide in Him and He abides in us, — provided 
we have that love to one another which is, as it were, the sum of His com- 
mandments. The foundation and growth of this love-principle, whereby we 
come into this close union with Hin, is, first, the sight which the writer and 
fellow-apostles had of the fact that God sent His Son into the world, and their 
testimony to it; secondly, the confession that Jesus is the Son of God; and 
thirdly, the consequent belief and knowledge of the love which God has in 
us. Thus love is perfected, and the Christian comes into the likeness of Christ: 
as He is, so are we in this world. Confidence in the day of judgment is secured, 
and through perfected love all fear is removed. 

8. The correspondence of ver. 12a and John i. 18, cannot fail to be noticed. 
It is evident, however, that the connection and thought in this passage are 
different from what is noticeable in that verse of the Gospel. The contrast in 
the Gospel is between the inability of man to see God, and the revelation of 
Him by the incarnate Logos. Here it is, as we may say, between the outward 
and inward vision. If we love one another, we have the inward vision. We 
have, and know that we have, the indwelling of God within us. The words of 
ver. 120 and ver. 13 answer closely to what has been said before, but in con- 
nection with ver. 12a they are brought out in a new light.—9. The words 7 
ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ are to be interpreted as meaning: the love which has its source in 
God, and is infused into and implanted in the believer as the life-principle 
within him. This love is in the completed and perfected state in us, as we love 
one another according to the measure of Christ’s command. Love, by reason of 
its very nature, goes out towards others; so with the Divine love-principle, as it 
enters into and abides in the souls which open themselves to receive it. — 
10. Ver. 13 gives the statement of iii. 24, but it gives this statement as a part of 
the contrast to the words: ‘‘No one hath beheld God at any time.’’ We do 
not see God, but we have in the possession of the Spirit the proof that we have 
Him dwelling in us. —11. With ver. 14 begins the presentation of the develop- 
ment of the love-principle by which we are brought into union with God. Men 
have not seen God at any time; the disciples of Christ have not seen Him, any 
more than other men. But the latter have what supplies for them the place of 
sight, in that which is brought to them through Christ. The earliest disciples 
have beheld in their seeing of Him, and communion with Him, the great truth 
that God has sent His Son to be the Saviour of the world. This truth is the 
fundamental one with relation to the inward sight. The apostle and his fellow- 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 809 


apostles had seen, heard, handled, the Word of life, and thus had known the 
revelation of God and of God’s life. This revelation was to the end of the sal- 
vation of man (σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμου), and thus was the revelation of the Divine 
life for the realizing of eternal life in men. The testimony continually borne 
(μαρτυροῦμεν) by these apostles, who had thus seen, heard, handled, ete., sets the 
great truth before men for their acceptance; and those who willingly receive it 
give expression to their faith by confessing that Jesus is the Son of God. This 
confession is the beginning of the true Divine life in their souls, because it 
answers in their case to the seeing, hearing, and handling, which was permitted 
to those who were associated with Jesus in His daily living when on earth. 
The striking correspondence in the thought here, with that which is set forth 
in John xx. 30, 31, will be observed by the careful reader. The whole record 
of John’s Gospel was given in order that those who should read it might, in 
view of the testimony of the writer to what he had heard and seen, believe 
that Jesus is the Son of God, and believing might have life, Confession 
resting upon a belief founded upon testimony, which testimony was based upon 
sight and experience: this is the order of the Johannean thought, as to the 
beginning and growth of the Christian life, the life of light and love, in which 
God abides in the soul, and the soul in God. With the confession the life begins, 
and it moves onward from that beginning. The confession, however, is only 
the outward voice answering to the inward faith, and so the true beginning is 
faith. And the life is thus begun for every one who makes the confession on 
the basis of the belief (ὃς ἐάν). 

12. With respect to individual words or phrases in ver. 11 ff., the following 
suggestions may be made: (a) θεόν of ver. 12 has its prominent position as 
connected with the impossibility of actually seeing God Himself, in contrast 
with the inward union with and vision of Him, which come through love, faith, 
confession, etc. —(b) ἐν τούτῳ (ver. 13) seems to refer forward to the second ὅτι 
clause. The sure evidence of the existence of the Divine love in us, and thus 
of our abiding in God and His abiding in us, is the gift of the Spirit to every 
believer. —(c) ἡμεῖς (ver. 14) evidently refers to the apostolic preachers, — (d) 
Testimony founded upon sight is, so far as the apostolic preaching is concerned, 
the keynote both of the Epistle and of the Gospel of John (comp. Ep. i. 1; 
Gosp. i. 14). —(e) The word σωτῆρα, which is here a predicative appositional 
word, does not occur elsewhere in John’s writings, except in the Gosp. iv. 42. 
The idea that Jesus is the Saviour of the world is an idea vitally related to the 
whole thought of John; but it is, as it were, incidental to the peculiar character 
of his inward life, and the peculiar line of thinking in his two great works, 
that Jesus is presented by him more prominently in His relation to God and to 
the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, than in the light of a Saviour and Redeemer. —(/f) The words 
ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ ἐπιστεύσαμεν (ver. 16) correspond with those found in John vi. 69, in 
the reverse order. The order in the Gospel is the order of growth and develop- 
ment, belief moving forward to knowledge. But when the Christian believer 
is looking from the standpoint of an already developed life, and is stating a 
truth of the soul’s experience, as the apostle is doing here, the order is not 
essential, —the two things are united in one, as it were, and the emphasis of 
the soul’s experience is given forth in the expression, J know and believe. — 
(g) The love which God has inus: This is the love which is exhibited and proved 
in the’great fact of the sending of the Son as a Saviour, and it is spoken of as in 
us, because it takes up its abode in our hearts, as the life-principle within us, 


810 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XLV. 
Vv. 166-21. 


1. The last part of ver. 16 forms a connecting link between ver. 16a, the 
close of the preceding passage, and ver. 17. the opening of the following one. 
The two passages, however, form rather half-paragraphs than paragraphs, since 
the thought of love as the life-principle of the Divine life in the soul moves on 
to the end of the chapter. —2. The reference of ἐν τούτῳ, of ver. 17, to what 
precedes is, on the whole, to be preferred. It is in that love-union between God 
and man which makes the life of man to be an abiding of his soul in God, and 
an abiding of God in his soul, that the perfecting of love is realized. The words 
μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, with us, instead of ἐν ἡμῖν, in us (ver. 12), are almost necessarily to be 
explained, as it would seem, as involving somewhat of that idea_of union which 
has been previously presented. The phrase hints at the notion of God’s dealing 
with us, and his co-operation with us in the matter of the perfecting. The iva 
clause sets forth the end towards which this perfecting of love works. This end 
is confidence, or boldness, in the day of judgment. — The sentence is differently 
explained by Huther and some other interpreters, and ἐν τούτῳ is regarded as 
referring to, and explained by the iva clause. Love is perfected in the fact that 
we have boldness in the day of judgment. The idea of boldness, and casting 
out fear, is thus made the one idea to which every thing else is subordinate. — 
3. The sentence beginning with ὅτι (ver. 17) gives the ground of-the boldness or 
confidence; it is founded on the fact, that, as He is, so are we in this world. 
The words ἐν τ. κόσμ. τούτ. belong with ἐσμέν only, not also with ἐστιν, Huther 
regards the phrase, as He is, as meaning as He is in this matter of love ; that is, 
we have love as our life-principle, even as He has it as His eternal life-principle. 
This would seem to be the natural suggestion of the context, and there is appar- 
ently no reason for going beyond this suggestion simply because the phrase 
happens to be in the general and unlimited form. Some interpreters refer the 
likeness here indicated to the whole character of Christ. This whole character, 
however, has its centre in the love-principle; and, according to the writer’s 
present line of thought, he is speaking of the life as viewed in relation to its 
central and vital principle.— 4. Ver. 18 is added by way of carrying out and 
emphasizing the idea of boldness in the day of judgment as connected with 
perfected love. Fear and love are inconsistent with each other. When love is 
perfected, therefore, fear must be excluded. The incompatibility of fear with 
love is grounded on the fact that fear has κόλασις, This word, as connected with 
its use in Matt. xxv. 46, and in the Septuagint, means punishment. As following 
upon the mention of the day of judgment in ver. 17, it must be understood, it 
would seem, in the sense of that punishment which follows the day of judgment. 
Fear has within itself, carries with it, and brings forward into the present, this 
punishment, in and through the painful apprehension of it. 

5. There can be but little doubt that the true text in ver. 19 is ἀγαπῶμεν, 
without the added αὐτόν of the T. R. We love, the apostle says, because He 
first loved us. This statement is evidently made as preparatory to the two 
following verses. The fact that love in us is the offspring of God’s love — that 
love, as an active and out-working principle in us, is due to His love as manifested 
in act towards us — makes it essential to the real life of our love, that it should 
go out towards our brethren. The man who claims to have love as his life- 
principle, and to have this life-principle in action towards God, while it is not 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 811 


in action, but is even replaced by its opposite, in relation to the brethren, knows 
nothing of true love. Such exercise of love to the brethren is, moreover, the 
command, and even the sum of the commands, of God. 


XLVI. 
CHAPTER Y. 
Vv. 1-5. 


1. There seems to be a manifest and close connection between ver. 1 of this 
chapter, and ver. 21 of the chapter which precedes. This is indicated by the 
correspondence in the fundamental thought of ver. 1b and ver. 21), and also by 
the bringing-forward of the idea of the children of God, and the fulfilment 
of God’s commandments, in the following context. Alford holds that this 
connection is so close as to indicate, that, in the words every one that believes, 
ete., the apostle refers to the ἀδελφός, This view of Alford, however, must 
probably be rejected, and we must regard the apostle as setting forth anew, 
and with renewed emphasis, the two great and united principles which lie at 
the basis of the true life: faith and love. By believing, the man enters into the 
relationship of a child to God; he is begotten of God, according to the language 
here used. The natural and necessary result of this relationship of a child to 
a father is love, —love to the father, and love to the other children who are 
begotten of him. God’s child must love God’s children. The phrase πᾶς ὁ 
πιστεύων accordingly refers, as does πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν, to the Christian believer, whose 
duty to love his brethren is under discussion, and τὸν γεγεννημένον alone refers to 
the brother. —2. We have, in ver. 2, a reversing of what is indicated in chap. iv. 
There the thought is: If we love the brethren, we may be sure that we love God; 
here it is: If we love God, we may know that we love the brethren. The 
explanation of this change seems to be twofold: First, it is a case similar to 
that of ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν in iv. 16: in the Christian life, the proof 
moves in both directions; and, secondly, the writer is desiring here to bring out 
the inseparable connection between love to the brethren and love to God: if we 
love God, we love the brethren; and so truly is this the fact, that, whenever 
we have love to God which is real and genuine, so that we keep His command- 
ments, we have therein the knowledge that we love the brethren also. —3. The 
idea of love to the brethren as the fulfilment of the commands of God, is 
evidently still in the writer’s mind. For this reason it is, that he adds, ver. 3: 
The love of God is the keeping of His commandments. If, therefore, we 
love God, we must keep the great command, and, with the presence of this love 
in our hearts, we shall keep it, and fulfil its call to love. —4. The mark of 
punctuation, which should be placed after τηρῶμεν (ver. 3), cannot be determined 
with certainty. It seems to the writer of this note most natural to place a 
comma here, as Westcott does, and thus to join this clause closely to the 
preceding. Love to God is that keeping of His commandments which finds 
them not burdensome. R. V.placesa colon here; Tischendorf, a colon; Alford, 
a period. In any case, it is probable that a comma should be placed at the end 
of ver. 3. The first clause of ver. 4 is thus immediately connected with the last 
words of ver. 3, and presents the reason why the commands are not grievous or 
burdensome, — namely, because the one who is begotten of God overcomes the 
world. The overcoming of the power which stands in opposition to God places 
the man in a new condition. The enmity which belongs to the world has passed 


812 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


away from him, and love has entered into its place. The loving spirit conquering 
all opposition, the commands are fulfilled in love, and are no longer a burden. 

5. Ver. 4b sets forth faith as the victory which overcomes the world. Faith 
is said to be the victory, because it involves in itself the overcoming of the world. 
When the man believes, he turns in his whole life from the world to God. At 
this point, the apostle comes back to the idea of faith, which opens the chapter, 
and which is also presented as the foundation of the new life, in iii. 23, and in 
the idea of confession, in chap. iv. The necessity of faith is emphasized, in 
ver. 5, by the significant question, Who is he, etc., which is equivalent to No 
one but he. —If we examine carefully the latter part of chap. iv., and these early 
verses of chap. v., we can scarcely fail to see that the apostle brings out the two 
great essential principles of the Divine life in the soul, love and faith, and that, 
while in accordance with the natural development of his thought, he makes love 
especially prominent, and also gives it the first place in the preceding chapter, 
he is at pains to show that faith is the primary element of the life in chap. v., 
and that it is through faith that the life begins. The man who believes is 
begotten as a child of God; when he is thus begotten, he loves. Faith works 
through love; it puts forth into action the love-force which is in itself. — In this 
closing sentence of the first paragraph of chap. v., the belief is again represented 
as belief that Jesus is the Son of God. The thought in which the Gospel of 
John ends is the great and all-powerful conviction of the apostle’s life. — The 
word faith, as a substantive, occurs in the Gospel and Epistle only in ver. 4; 
the writer turns again to the verbal form in ver. 5. 


XLVIL. 
Vv. 6-12. 


1. At this point the apostle turns to a new and distinct presentation of Jesus, 
and the testimony respecting Him, to the reader’s mind. This more special 
presentation naturally follows after the words of vv. 4, 5; and it becomes by 
reason of its position, and the preparation made for it through the development 
: of all the thoughts of the Epistle, a most impressive statement of the author’s 
belief. —otto¢. This one who is the object of the Christian confession, and the 
faith in whom involves the belief that He is the Son of God, is the one who 
came, in the fulfilment of the Messianic promises (ὁ ἐλθών ---- ὁ ἐρχόμενος), by 
means of water and blood, Jesus Christ. The historical person Jesus, who is the 
Christ, is also the Son of God. To believe that this person is the Son of God, 
is the door of entrance into union of soul with God, i.e., into the Divine life, for 
all men, even as such belief had been the entrance-way into the experience of 
the blessedness of that life for the apostle himself. The correspondence of this 
sixth verse, in its relation to ver. 5, with the first part of the closing verse of 
the Gospel of John, xx. 31, is most clearly manifest. —2. The reference in the 
water and blood is almost certainly to the baptism and death of Jesus. By 
means of these two things, which began and ended His life, He came —in the full 
sense of His divine mission. Whether there is any allusion or meaning in the 
words beyond this, is questionable. As to the two suggestions which are most 
frequently made: that there is an allusion to John xix. 34, or an allusion to the 
sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, it may be remarked that no such 
use is made of the fact mentioned in John xix., in the context surrounding that 
verse, as is made here of the water and blood. In John xix., indeed, the fact 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 813 


that blood and water came from the side of Jesus may be, not improbably, 
included as an element in the evidence presented by the story of which it is a 
part, (though it seems to be only a minor element); but there is no such marked 
distinction made between the water and the blood, as related to the evidence, as 
is here set forth (ver. 8), and there was apparently no such separation in the two 
things in the event itself; and, again, it may be remarked, that, as John makes 
no reference to the Lord’s Supper in his Gospel (unless it be in chap. vi., which 
is altogether improbable), it seems unlikely that in this Epistle, which is so 
closely connected in its thought with the Gospel, he would make so much of it. 
—3. The second part of ver. 6: not by water only, but by water and blood, is 
evidently designed to bring out with emphasis the fact, that the two together 
are the essential elements in the case, and that the latter is included with the 
former, and is prominent. It is probable that this statement has reference to 
some particular error of the time and region in which John was writing, and 
not improbable that this error, as Huther and several other interpreters hold, 
was that of the Docetans, as explained by Huther in his note. The thought 
of the apostle is, that in the mission of Christ to the world, and His office and 
work in the world, His death is the consummation and the great event. With- 
out the atoning death, the work was not accomplished. 

4, The καί which opens the third part of ver. 6 joins the following statement 
immediately to the preceding one. This close connection is due to the fact that 
the testimony of the Spirit is a testimony to the truth just mentioned, and also, 
as we may believe, to the fact that the writer is intending, in the next verse, to 
unite the water and blood with the Spirit as witnesses. The Spirit is,-beyond 
any reasonable doubt, the Holy Spirit. He is spoken of here as the witness; 
that is, the one whose great office it is to bear testimony, and in whom the 
highest testimony abides. The Spirit is the truth. He takes the place of 
Christ, after the death of Christ, and He is the revelation of the truth, as Christ 
was during His earthly life. As having in Himself the truth, He guides the 
human soul to the knowledge of the truth, and thus becomes an ever-continu- 
ing witness. That to which the Spirit bears testimony, so far as this passage is 
concerned, is the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, and consequently that eternal 
life is in Him. The second point, however, is only made prominent in the fol- 
lowing verses, and that which is here especially referred to is the first point. 
This reference to ver. 5 (Jesus is the Son of God) seems better than that of 
Huther, who makes the Spirit testify to the first part of ver. 6. Huther, how- 
ever, regards the main truth which the apostle desires to bring out in the whole 
context as being the truth expressed in the words: Jesus the Son of God is the 
Christ. —5. The emphasis of ver. 7, in its relation to the thought of the passage, 
lies in the last words: and the three agree in one. The unity in the testimony 
of the three witnesses is the point which is urged with special force, as proving 
the truth which is set forth. This agreement in the testimony confirms the 
truth of the thing to which the testimony is given. This thing is the statement 
of the last words of ver. 5, or the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God. The 
prominent position given to τρεῖς, in the first part of ver. 7, may be accounted 
“ΤΟΥ by the fact that the water and blood, which had not been alluded to in ver. 6 
as witnesses, are now brought forward under that aspect. This would seem to be 
a sufficient reason for the emphasis; but it may be, as some writers think, that 
there is a reference here to the provision of the Mosaic law, that two or three 
witnesses establish the truth of an alleged fact. In the latter case, the idea 
of the apostle is, we may believe, that the testimony fills out the demands of 


814 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


human law, with respect to testimony, to the full measure. This reference, 
however, must be regarded, as Huther also says, as quite doubtful. 

6. The discussion as to the genuineness of the disputed words in vv. 7, 8, 
has reached a point, at present, where substantially all competent and candid 
scholars are agreed that they are to be rejected from the text. The facts of the 
case, so far as the external evidence is concerned, are presented briefly in 
Huther’s textual note at the beginning of the chapter. The internal evidence, 
if not equally strong with the external, is very strong as bearing against the 
words. The introduction of the statement that there are three who bear wit- 
ness in heaven, and that the three are one, is unconnected with the development 
of the thought of the context and the chapter. This thought, so far as the 
matter of fact or truth is concerned, is: Jesus is the Son of God; so far as 
the matter of evidence is concerned, the design of the passage is clearly to set 
forth the evidence which is brought before the minds of men by the water and 
the blood (i.e., by the great facts at the beginning and end of the ministry of 
Jesus), and by the Holy Spirit as working in the soul and bearing testimony to 
it. The passage speaks thus of a truth which is to be apprehended by men 
in their earthly life, and of evidence which is presented to them here on earth. 
The fact that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are three bearing wit- 
ness in heaven, and that they are one, does not suggest evidence of the same 
sort; but, so far as it indicates evidence at all, it suggests what is of quite a 
different kind. This fact comes to the mind in a different way, and is, as we 
may say, apprehended in its force only after the truth, that Jesus is the Son of 
God, has been accepted and believed. The difficulties presented by Huther in 
his Remark at the end of ver. 7 are also very serious and weighty. The fact 
that the first three are spoken of as bearing witness in heaven, takes the words 
out of the connection of the passage, which necessarily, as we may say, turns 
upon testimony as given on earth. Moreover, the ninth verse bears strongly 
against the genuineness, either because, as is urged by Huther, these disputed 
words, if admitted, make it unintelligible what witness is meant by the μαρτυρία 
τοῦ θεοῦ of this verse; or, because, if we regard the witness of God here alluded 
to as the witness of the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, the contrast must be 
with the testimony of the Spirit, the water, and the blood, as the witness of 
men, whereas this latter is evidently not a human, but rather a divine testi- 
mony. The un-Johannean character of the expression, the Father and the 
Word, is worthy of consideration. In connection with the external evidence, 
attention may be called to the extreme improbability that such a formal state- 
ment involving the doctrine of the Trinity, if originally belonging to the Epistle, 
could by any means have disappeared from all the Greek MSS, from the fourth 
to the fifteenth century. 

7. The purpose of ver. 9 is to set forth the value of the Divine testimony, 
and, consequently, to insist upon the credit which should be given to it. The 
conditional clause refers to the fact that human testimony is received as satis- 
factory and sufficient evidence, according to the common custom of mankind. 
If this be so, urges the apostle, we ought to receive with a deeper conviction, 
and a more immovable belief, the testimony of God; for it is greater, i.e., 
greater in its authority and value. There can be no doubt that this verse has 
a certain connection with what immediately precedes; and that thus the force 
of the evidence mentioned as a divinely-given evidence is pressed upon the 
attention of the readers. This is to be affirmed, whatever may be the direct 
and special reference of 7 μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, With reference to this question, 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 815 


the following suggestion is offered as best satisfying the conditions of the pas- 
sage: namely, that the writer passes, in the progress of the verses here, from the 
objective side of the evidence for the Divine Sonship of Jesus to the subjective 
side. The objective side is that presented in ver. 6, the Spirit and the watce 
and the blood. The subjective side is brought forward in ver. 11, the eternal 
life within the soul, given to the soul and possessed by it. But these are, really, 
not two different things, but two different sides or aspects of the same thing. 
Jesus Christ, who was seen, heard, handled, is the eternal life. The experi- 
ence of what He is within the soul is the other side — the corresponding internal 
manifestation of what is borne witness to by the great facts of His earthly career, 
and by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and afterward. 
—8. The force and connection of ver. 9) are uncertain. The simplest and most 
natural construction of the sentence, however, would seem to be that which 
makes ὅτε explanatory of αὕτη, and gives to the words this meaning: The witness 
of God (of which the apostle is speaking in the argument) is this, that, ete. ; that 
is, when I speak in this passage of the testimony of God, I mean the fact - 
that He has borne testimony concerning His Son. This fact, that He has thus 
testified to His Son through the Spirit, the water, and the blood, is a ground of 
conviction for us which is of more force and value than any human testimony 
could be. If this is the true view of the meaning, the connection through ὅτι 
with what immediately precedes, may be believed to be this: I call your atten- 
tion to the greater value of the Divine testimony, because, in this matter which 
I have just mentioned, there exists that Divine testimony which God gives to 
men. 

9. At ver. 10, the writer turns towards the internal side of the matter, which 
is fully and distinctly set forth in ver. 11. The transition is made through the 
word believeth. The.man who believes on the Son of God, as made known by 
this testimony and evidence, thereby transfers the evidence, as it were, from 
without himself to within himself. The testimony becomes an internal posses- 
sion, an inward experience. This idea is presented more emphatically by means 
of the contrasted negative statement of the latter part of the verse, according to 
the peculiar style of this writer. —10. Ver. 11. This verse is to be immediately 
connected in thought with ver.12. The full idea on the internal side is brought 
out in the two verses as taken together. The witness or testimony, says ver. 11, 
is this: that God gave to us eternal life, and this life isin His Son. The testi- 
mony that Jesus is the Son of God (ver. 5) becomes, as it passes towards and 
into the internal sphere, the testimony that God has bestowed upon us, in and 
through Him, eternal life. Whether the clause and this life is in His Son is to 
be regarded as independent and co-ordinate with the first clause: The witness is, 
ete., or is dependent on ὅτι, and is thus referred to as a part of the testimony, is 
uncertain. Huther, and most recent commentators who express an opinion on 
the subject, take the former view. There is, however, at least one strong reason 
in favor of the latter view, namely, that the real testimony which is given in 
John’s Gospel, and which, we may believe, was brought to his own mind by 
the water and the blood and the Spirit, was not simply that God gave us eternal 
life, but also, that this life is in His Son. This was the truth which John 
learned from the Divine testimony, and we may believe that it was also the 
truth which he intended to proclaim to his readers as the Divine testimony. 
This view of the sentence seems also to the writer of this note to make the 
progress of the thought in vv. 10-12 most simple and natural: he that believes 
that Jesus is the Son of God, and so believes on Him, has the external testi- 


816 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


mony transferred, as it were, to the internal sphere within himself (ver. 10); 
this testimony now passing to the mind and becoming internal is, that God 
gave us eternal life, and that this life is in His Son (ver. 11); he that possesses 
the Son as indwelling in himself has, accordingly, as his own possession, as the 
actual experience of his own soul, the eternal life. 


XLVIIL. 
Vv. 13-21 . 


1. The correspondence of ver. 15 with John xx. 31 is very noticeable, and 
we can scarcely doubt that in this verse the apostle turns to the closing of his 
Epistle. The reference in ταῦτα ἔγραψα is probably to the entire Epistle, though 
there are certain parts of it, and particularly the last section, which present the 
idea of eternal life more distinctly than others. The purpose of the Gospel is 
stated, in the verse just mentioned, to be this: That the readers may believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, they may have 
life in His name; that of the Epistle is here given in the words: That you may 
know that you have eternal life, —you that believe on the name of the Son 
of God. To produce faith, was the object of the apostle’s record of the life of 
Jesus. To give the knowledge of their actual and present possession of eternal 
life, to those who already had faith, was his desire and design in writing this 
letter to his Christian brethren. In the order of progress with relation to 
Christian living, therefore, as well as in the order of the development of thought, 
the Epistle follows the Gospel. We may believe that it followed the Gospel also 
in time. — The possession of the knowledge that we have eternal life is the 
fulfilling of our joy (chap. i. ver. 4). The end of the Epistle, in this sense, 
corresponds with the beginning. —2. Ver. 14 adds, through καί, which opens 
the verse, a result or out-working of the knowledge mentioned in ver. 13 in a 
special line, —that line of communion with God in which our petitions for 
ourselves and our Christian brethren go forth towards Him, and thus in that 
line or sphere in which the support and joy and peace of our life are to be 
found. The knowledge produces or becomes, in this line or sphere, confidence 
towards God. This confidence is explained or defined in the following words, 
that, if we ask anything according to His will, he hears us; and if we know 
that He hears us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions which 
we have asked of Him. The Christian believér has confidence, founded upon 
his possession of the Divine life—the light-life—in the soul, that his future 
prayers will be answered, and that his past prayers have been answered. He 
knows, that, as his desire and will are conformed to God’s will, the real and 
fundamental petition in every prayer, that God’s will may be done, is answered 
in his own experience and life. All things work together for his good as he 
loves God; his joy is made full as his fellowship is with the Father and with the 
Son. — 3. Ver. 16 changes the thought from prayer in general to {prayer for 
the sinning brother. This change, and the introduction of this reference to the 
fellow-Christian, may be connected with the thought of brotherly love which is 
so prominent in the Epistle. We may believe, however, that the new verses 
(16, 17) are suggested partly in connection with some special dangers which 
belonged to the time and surroundings of those to whom the apostle was 
writing. The fact that the prayer here spoken of is limited to the case of 
sinning, and that the sin unto death is made prominent, is confirmatory of this 


᾿ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, 817 
view. The prominence of the sin unto death is indicated, not only by reason 
of the fact that it is distinctly mentioned, but also by the special exception of 
it which is made in the other parts of the verses. 

4. The sin unto death is left by the writer without further definition. This 
fact would seem to indicate that the phrase was understood, or likely to be 
understood, by the readers to whom the Epistle was addressed. With regard to 
the question what sin is referred to, it may be said: (a) That it is evidently 
a sin which might be committed by Christians; it is the brother, not the 
unbeliever, who is conceived of as possibly sinning thus; (b) That it would 
seem to be probable, rather than otherwise, not to say certain, that it must be a 
sin which is indicated, or alluded to, in the Epistle itself; the writer would 
searcely introduce with such abruptness, and so near the close of his letter, 
a reference to such a sin without any explanation of its meaning, or any 
development of thought respecting it, unless there had been something in the 
earlier part of the Epistle which could throw light upon it; (c) That the words 
πρὸς θάνατον are to be understood as conveying the idea that the sin certainly 
leads to death; this is shown by the fact, that, in the sense of mere tendency 
towards death, the expression πρὸς θάνατον is applicable to all sin, whereas what 
is here spoken of is evidently a particular kind of sin; (d) That the death here 
mentioned is the death which is contrasted with ¢w7, and must accordingly be 
understood in the sense of eternal death; (e) That the sin unto death has a 
certain individuality in it, if, indeed, it is not a special and particular sin. The 
general form of the sentence setting forth this sin, and the sinning which is 
opposite to this, makes it improbable that the division here made is between 
two equal or great classes of sins, but rather indicates that there is a single 
exception. If, in view of these several points, we examine the Epistle for the 
suggestions which it may give, we find that it makes peculiarly prominent one 
sin, which, if committed, shows that the person guilty of it, though in the 
company of Christian believers, is not of them, and is not of God. This sin is 
that denial of the Son which involves in itself the denial of the Father (ii. 22), 
and that denial that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, which shows the spirit 
of antichrist (iv. 3). Huther claims, that, if the apostle had meant this sin 
only, he would have designated it plainly. But this depends on the special 
thought and purpose which the writer had in mind. He may have intended to 
present the sin here in this particular light, after having already designated it 
by the use of clear and definite descriptive words; and his desire may have been 
te use the words here employed, because he wished to limit the matter of 
petitions for others at the point which is determined by οὐ πρὸς θάνατον and πρὸς 
θάνατον. It seems most probable, therefore, that the sin which involves the 
spirit of antichrist is the one which is referred to in this expression. The 
Christian who is guilty of this sin falls away utterly, and is in the condition of 
apostasy. This passage would seem to border, therefore, on Heb. vi. 4 ff., 
x. 26 ff.; rather than on Mark iii. 22, where the scribes said, He hath Beelzebub, 
ete., and Jesus declared the sin against the Holy Spirit (ver. 29) to be unpar- 
donable. 

5. The language of ver. 16 is peculiar in some respects: (a) With reference 
to sin not unto death, the word αἰτήσει is used, while, in connection with the sin 
unto death, the word employed is ἐρωτήσῃ. The former is the stronger word in 
itself; the two corresponding nearly to our ask, in the sense of demand, and of 
request. But as both are here used with respect to prayer, and as we find in 
John xvi. 26 the same two words used of praying or petitioning, it may be 


818 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


regarded as doubtful whether the change from the one verb to the other is 
anything more than a rhetorical change. —(b) The subject of δώσει is, by the 
peculiarity of the sentence, left in uncertainty. Huther regards it as the same 
with the subject. of αἰτήσει; so Haupt, Alford, Moulton, and others. Westcott 
and others, on the other hand, make God the subject of δώσει. There seems to 
be no serious objection to the view of Huther; and, if it is adopted, the sentence 
moves forward in a more simple and direct way. In this case, the word αὐτῷ 
refers to the sinning brother; and the verb δώσει means, shall give through his 
intercession with God. In this case, also, the dative τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν is in an 
appositional relation to αὐτῷ, only extending the thought from the individual to 
all who are in a similar condition. —(c) The expression οὐ περὶ ἐκείνης λέγω iva 
ἐρωτήσῃ deserves special notice. The author does not prohibit prayer in case of 
the sin unto death; he simply excludes this from what he is speaking of in the 
earlier part of the verse. This failure to prohibit such prayer may, perhaps, be 
regarded as hinting at the possibility of repentance even in case of this sin, as 
the language in Heb. vi. 4-6 and x. 26 ff. may be explained; see Additional 
Notes to Meyer’s Comm. on Heb., Amer. ed., pp. 550 f., 662 f. If this is so, 
this sin here referred to cannot be the unpardonable sin spoken of, Mark iii. 29; 
and the πρὸς θάνατον cannot involve an absolute certainty of death for every 
individual who commits it, i.e., the absolute impossibility of repentance and 
pardon. But all that the expression distinctly declares is, that the writer is not 
speaking of prayer for this sin, when he gives the assurance that the Christian 
who asks on behalf of his brother ἁμαρτ. du. μὴ mp. τ. Gav. shall secure the 
blessing for which he asks. 

6. The connection of ver. 17 is evidently with what goes before; but precisely 
what the connection of thought is intended to be, is a point of some difficulty, 
and one on which interpreters have differed. It would seem that two things 
must be observed, in order to a decision of the question: first, that the subject 
before the writer’s mind is intercessory prayer for other Christians, who are 
sinning; and, secondly, that the form of the sentences of this verse indicates 
the including of the class of sins here mentioned, as a part of that which is 
meant by the general word sin. If we take these two things into consideration, 
the result will follow, that the verse is added with reference to what precedes, as 
showing the wideness of the sphere within which intercessory prayer may be 
offered, without including the case of sin unto death. — We may believe, how- 
ever, that this verse has also a forward look; and, in this view of it, it suggests 
the idea of sin as covering all unrighteousness, and being mainly not unto 
death. It may thus cling to the Christian believer in some degree; but when 
the Christian is viewed in the light of the ideal of his life, ‘‘he who has been 
begotten of God does not sin.’’ The Epistle thus returns at the end to a 
thought kindred to that of its beginning; see chap. i. vv. 6-8. —In this view 
of the matter, ver. 18, with what follows, may be regarded as gathering up the 
thought which the writer would impress upon his readers as the beginning and 
ending of his Epistle. The Son of God, in the person of Jesus Christ, is come 
into the world to give eternal life through the knowledge of God, —the life 
which is originated by a Divine force, and which has its being in the sphere of 
the Divine light-life. —7. The three verses 18-20 begin, each of them, with the 
word οἴδαμεν. The statements which they contain are thus presented with a 
special formality, and even solemnity, as setting forth fundamental known 
truths. The three points are arranged here in a peculiar order, and, as we may 
believe, with a view to the final impression which the apostle desires to make. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 819 


We know that the one who is begotten of God does not sin, — the light-life is 
not intermingled with darkness; we know that we, who are Christian believers, 
are of God— we thus are those who possess the light-life which is free from 
sin; we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding 
that we may know God —and thus we are in God, through being in His Son. 

8. As to individual words and phrases in these three verses, the following. 
points may be noticed: (a) The first clause of ver. 18 is a repetition of what 
is said in iii. 9, except in the substitution of duapravet for ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖ, and 
‘presents what is evidently an essential element in the Johannean thought. — 
(>) The second and third clauses have not appeared in the earlier part of the 
Epistle. They set forth that by means of which, or the process by which, 
the result is accomplished, but in the form of a contrast to the idea of sinning, 
presented in the first clause. The text is doubtful in the second clause, some 
authorities reading αὐτόν, and some ἑαυτόν. If ἑαυτόν is read, ὁ γεννηθείς refers 
to the same person as ὁ γεγεννημένος of the first clause, and the thought is: he 
that was begotten of God (the aorist referring to the definite time and event of 
the new birth) keeps himself, and (the result is, —so that this end is reached, 
namely, that) the evil one touches him not. If, on the other hand, αὐτόν is 
read, ὁ γεννηθείς may, most naturally be referred to Christ, and the meaning is, . 
that Christ is a guardian power, keeping him, and (so that) the evil one is not 
able to get any hold upon him. —(c) The words ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὑτοῦ may 
remind us of John xiv. 50: ‘“‘he has nothing in me.’’ They indicate that the 
evil one does not touch the man who is thus guarded or kept, so far that any 
defilement of the soul, or any power of sin in the soul, is the result. —(d) The 
first part of ver. 19 sets forth the fact that ‘‘ we,”’ i.e., the Christian readers, are 
of the class of persons of whom the words begotten of God can be predicated. 
The second part of the verse presents the fact, in contrast with this, that the 
unconverted world lies within the sphere and under the power of the evil one. 
That τῷ πονηρῷ means the evil one, and not evil, is rendered almost certain by 
the preceding ὁ πονηρός. --- (6) δὲ (ver. 20) is perhaps equivalent to moreover, but 
perhaps it is adversative, expressing a contrast to the last part of ver. 19. The 
fact that the Son of God is come and has given, etc., is the means by which we 
pass out of the sphere and dominion of the evil one into the new life, in which 
he has no power over us, and is thus the means by which, as born of God, we 
do not sin. —(f) #«et presents the incarnation as a permanent fact on which 
Christian faith and life depend. The word διάνοια means understanding; ‘the 
divinely empowered inner sense by which we judge of things-divine,”’ as Alford 
says. This inner sense has been given to believers, that they may know Him 
who answers to the true idea of God. As the result of this knowledge, we are 
in Him that is true, instead of being in the power of the evil one. The expres- 
sion ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ can hardly be an appositional explanatory phrase, defining 
the One who is true to be the Son. This is clear from the fact that the Son is 
declared, in the beginning of the verse, to have been the means of our coming 
to know Him that is true, and also from the αὐτοῦ, which must, as it would 
seem, point back to τὸν ἀληθινόν, τῷ ἀληθινῷ, as its antecedent. The expression 
must, therefore, be equivalent to even in His Son, or inasmuch as (Huther) we 
are in His Son; by virtue of (Alford) being in His Son. In either case, the idea 
in the writer’s mind seems to be this: that we come into the realization of an 
indwelling in God, so soon as, and through the fact that, we are in the realiza- 
tion of such an indwelling in His Son. —(g) The reference of ούτος, in the last 
sentence of ver. 20, to Christ, is to be rejected, because of the distinction made 


820 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


in the preceding clauses between ὁ ἀληθινός and ὁ υἱός, and also the distinction 
carefully maintained throughout the Epistle between God the Father and 
Christ. It is also to be rejected, because of the similarity in the general thought 
of these verses and that of John xvii. 3, where the only true God and Jesus 
Christ are spoken of in their distinction from each other. The difficulty in the 
way of referring οὗτος to God the Father, which arises from the fact that God 
has already been declared to be ὁ ἀληθινός, and that thus there would be a 
tautological sentence here, is removed when we consider that these words are 
a kind of formal closing of the whole thought of the Epistle, —a setting-forth, 
as it were, of the truth which the Epistle rests upon. God as the possessor and 
revealer of the light-life, which is the eternal life, —this is the thought upon 
which all the other thoughts are founded. It is not strange that the author 
should say at the end of these last verses, and as preparatory to his final exhor- 
tation: This One who is true, who is brought to our knowledge through Jesus 
Christ His Son, is the true God, —the one only God who answers to the true 
and complete idea of God; and He is eternal life, in the sense that He has it in 
Himself, and we attain to the possession of it by coming into the knowledge of 
Him. — (h) The last verse of the Epistle contains an exhortation which might 
readily follow after the last sentence of ver. 20. The idols are referred to, it 
would seem, as representative of heathenism. They are the false deities, as 
opposed to the true. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


XLIX, 
Vv. 1-13. 


1. The designation ὁ πρεσβύτερος, which is found in the second and third 
Epistles of John, is peculiar, as compared with the absence of any designation 
whatever in the Gospel and the first Epistle. It can hardly be insisted upon, 
however, that a writer—and even one who has such striking individuality of 
style and expression as the author of the Gospel and First Epistle has— shall 
always completely hide his personality. If these two letters were addressed to 
individuals, as the third Epistle evidently was, it might be very natural for the 
writer to give himself the title here employed, with which, as knowing him, 
they would be familiar. Peter in his first Epistle (v. 1), speaks of himself as 
συμπρεσβύτερος, in connection with an exhortation to the elders in general. In 
the region where John lived, and especially in the period of his old age, he may 
readily have been reverentially known as the elder, and may, by reason of his 
position as the last survivor of the apostles, have spoken of himself, with a 
certain distinction from all others around him, as ὁ πρεσβύτερος. If the general 
characteristics of the books can be regarded as in harmony with the authorship 
by the Apostle John, the fact that we find this title in these Epistles, and the 
name John in the Book of Revelation, can hardly be regarded as inconsistent 
with such authorship. —2. As to the question to whom the second Epistle is 


THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 821 


addressed, the writer of this note is disposed to give the answer: It is a Chris- 
tian woman by the name of Kyria, who was in relations of friendship with the 
apostle. The arguments urged by Huther against this view do not seem to be 
decisive. On the other hand, the fact that Kyria is a known proper name; the 
great similarity in forms of expression between this Epistle and the third, 
which was evidently addressed to an individual; the allusion to the elect sister, 
and to the children of the two; and the applicability of the expression, I have 
found of (some of) thy children walking in truth, to members of a family, part 
of which only might be Christian, rather than to a body of Christian believers, 
seem strongly to favor the idea that the letter was written to an individual, and 
not ἰο ἃ church. —3. The phrase ἐν ἀληθείᾳ of ver. 1 seems to be adverbial in its 
character, and to mean in truth, i.e., with a love which truly deserves the name. 
In ver. 4, on the other hand, it draws nearer to the phrase ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ (3 John 
4, comp. 3 John 3). —4. The phrase, all those who know the truth, is probably 
to be referred to those in the writer’s neighborhood when he wrote. The love 
which is spoken of as going out from the Christians to these Christians is 
declared to be on account of the truth which abides in all Christians (ἡμῖν): 
and, the writer adds, it (the truth) shall be with us forever. The character of 
this sentence and thought is Johannean. 

5. The words of ver. 4, as Westcott remarks, ‘‘ appear to refer to an experi- 
ence of the writer in some other place than that to which the ‘lady’ belonged.” 
— The explanation of ἐν ἀληθείᾳ and of the καθώς clause, in its relation to this 
phrase, which is given by Huther, is better than that which Westcott gives, 
who makes ἐν ἀληθ. adverbial, and connects καθώς with περιπατοῦντας, and not 
with περ. ἐν dA. —6. The correspondence of the thought in vv. 5, 6, with what 
we find in the First Epistle, is very striking, and is of such a character as to show 
sameness of authorship. —7. At ver. 7, the thought turns, as in the First Epistle 
fii, 24-iv. 3, from the keeping of the commandments, as summed up in love to 
one another, to the deceivers and antichrists who do not confess that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh. The participle ἐρχόμενον is present and descriptive, 
coming ; ἐληλυθότα (1 John iv. 2) is perfect and temporal, having come, that he 
is come. —8. The exhortation of ver. 8 evidently refers to the danger arising 
from the possible evil influence of these deceivers. This exhortation looks toa 
negative and a positive end—on the negative side, not to lose the results in 
Christian development, ete., which had been wrought for them by the apostle 
and his helpers in the preaching of the gospel; on the positive side, the recep- 
tion of the full reward which such Christian development, if it should go on to 
perfection, would secure in the future. —9. The participle προάγων (ver. 9) is 
taken by Alford as meaning going before as a teacher or leader; R. V. marg., 
taketh the lead. It seems better, however, to regard it as meaning going for- 
ward beyond, and not abiding in (μένων), the teaching which comes from Christ. 
—10. Vv. 10, 11, add to the exhortation to be on their guard against suffering 
the evil influences of the false teachers to affect their Christian life and growth 
injuriously, a bidding that they should not give a hospitable reception to any 
person who should come to them not bringing the teaching of Christ. The 
class of persons here referred to are those who come with another doctrine, and 
with the design and purpose of subverting the gospel. The energy of the lan- 
guage is to be explained in connection with the denial, on the part of these 
persons, of that which the apostle regarded as the fundamental Christian truth; 
see the First Epistle. —11. On ver. 12, see notes on 3 John vv. 13, 14. — 12. The 
fact that the children only, and not the elect sister herself, are spoken of in 


822 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


ver. 13 as giving the salutation, is regarded by some as favoring the idea that 
the letter is addressed to achurch. But this fact seems to be easily explained 
if the elect sister was no longer living, or if her children only were in the place 
where the apostle was; and, if thus explicable, it affords no evidence that the 
letter was not written to an individual. 


THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 





L. 
Vv. 1-15. 


1. The words περὶ πάντων are to be explained as Huther explains them, in 
respect to all things, in all things ; εὐοδοῦσθαι, in the passive, means to be pros- 
perous, as in Rom. i. 10; ὑγιαΐνειν may possibly refer to bodily health, but more 
probably it is used in a figurative sense, as further carrying out the idea of 
εὐοδοῦσθαι; καθώς, the measure and standard of the prosperity which the apostle. 
desires for his friend, is that of the prospering of his soul in the Divine life. 
The.verb εὔχομαι near the beginning of this sentence may mean wish, and it may 
mean pray. Not improbably, R. V. is correct in giving it the meaning I pray. 
—2. Ver. 3 is introduced as a ground or reason for ver. 2. The joy which the 
apostle had in learning of the Christian walk and life of Gaius is a fact which 
justifies his statement of his wish or prayer for the prosperity of the latter as 
his soul prospers. The participle ἐρχομένων may perhaps be explained, with 
Westcott, as meaning when they came from time to time; but it may also be 
regarded, with Alford, as timeless, and merely conveying the reason of ἐχάρην. 
_—8. The phrase ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, in ver. 3, seems to be equivalent to the same expres- 
sion in 2 John, ver. 4, and not to the same words used adverbially in ver. 1 
and 2 John, ver. 1. Truth is here equivalent to the truth, only that it is 
expressed in a more general and less definite way. —4. The true text in ver. 4 
probably reads χαράν, Westcott and Hort, with B, read χάριν. If the latter 
reading is adopted, the meaning of the word is probably favor, or gift of the 
Divine grace. 

5. The first matter for the setting-forth of which the letter seems to have 
been written, is that of hospitality to Christian brethren. The apostle begins 
this by expressing his approval of Gaius for what he has done or is doing in this 
way, and then he commends to him the duty as one befitting the Christian life. 
‘The words of approval begin with thou doest a faithful work: the word faithful 
here seems to mean in accordance with Christian faith. —6. Ver. 6b intimates 
that these stranger-brethren are about to go back in their missionary journeying 
to Gaius. The account of the aorist participle with the future verb seems to be 
this: that the apostle conceives of his friend as immediately fulfilling the duty 
of hospitality indicated by the participle, so soon as there is a call for it, and 
with this thought he says, thou wilt do well in having discharged this duty. — 


THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 823 


7. Ver. 7 gives the reason for ver. 6b. It is the common reason for Christian 
love: because those towards whom the love is exhibited are united with Christ, 
are living and working for Him, and loving Him. ‘The name here is, doubtless, 
the name of Christ. But in addition to the going forth on behalf of His 
name, the writer adds, as a ground of the hospitable reception and kindly 
service, the fact that these men took nothing from the Gentiles; they were 
working for Christ, and would receive nothing from those who did not believe 
in Him. 

8. The second main point in the letter is the case of Diotrephes, and the 
suggestions connected with it. In this part of the Epistle, vv. 9-12, the follow- 
ing points may be noticed: (a) ἔγραψα, ver. 9, refers to a letter already written 
to the church of which Gaius was a member. —(b) On φιλοπρωτεύων Westcott 
remarks: ‘‘ It is of interest to compare the two sources of failure noticed in the 
two Epistles, προάγειν (2 John 9) and φιλοπρωτεύων, the undue claims to intel- 
lectual progress and to personal authority. There is nothing to indicate that 
Diotrephes held false opinions; his ambition only is blamed.’? Whether Dio- 
trephes was a presbyter or not, is uncertain; but it seems evident that he was a 
prominent man in the church to which Gaius belonged, and that he was disposed 
to assume prominence and authority. — (c) The word ἐπιδέχεται in verse 9 means 
receives, apparently in the sense of recognizing the apostle’s authority. The 
same word in ver. 10 is used in the more ordinary sense of receiving, as in the 
way of hospitality, ete. —(d) The verb ἐκβάλλει is indicative of special authority, 
or at least of special influence, as belonging to Diotrephes. — (6) In ver. 11, on 
the foundation of the case of Diotrephes, the apostle urges Gaius in general to 
imitate, not what is evil, but what is good; and then apparently brings forward 
the example of Demetrius as illustrative of the latter. — (jf) The closing parts 
of vv. 11, 12, are characteristic of John; and they are so artlessly so, that the 
candid reader will not fail to see in them an evidence of the Johannean 
authorship of the letter. 

9. The end of this Epistle corresponds very closely with that of the Second 
Epistle. The verb εἶχον here, as distinguished from ἔχων in 2 John, seems to 
call attention to the fact, somewhat more definitely, that he had the things 
to write before he began. The expression of the things omitted, he leaves for 
a personal communication. γίγνεσθαι of 2 John 12 involves the idea of coming 
to; ἰδεῖν of this Epistle, that of being with and seeing. The friends are, appar- 
ently, personal Christian friends. There is no salutation at the beginning of 
this Epistle, as there is in the second. It is given here at the end: Peace be 
unto thee. 


824 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


“La, 
Vw. 1, 2. 


1. That the Judas who wrote this Epistle was one of the four brothers 
mentioned in Matt. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3, is beyond any considerable doubt. That . 
these four brothers were brothers, and not cousins of Jesus, is probable, by 
reason of the fact that they are called ἀδελφοί, and are found in the narrative 
of the Gospels in connection with Mary, the mother of Jesus, as if they were 
members of her family. The probabilities of the case, in every respect, seem to 
favor this view. They were, thus, sons of Joseph and Mary, or of Joseph by a 
previous marriage. The James, accordingly, whose brother this Judas was, 
is the James mentioned in the Acts as the head of the church in Jerusalem, and 
the James who wrote the Epistle which is assigned to a person of this name. 
Judas was apparently, from the order in which the names of the brothers 
are given in the lists, younger than James. The reason why, although being 
a brother of the Lord, he does not speak of himself as such, is the same with 
that which is mentioned in the notes on Jas. i. 1. The fact that he speaks of 
himself as brother of James, seems to indicate that he stood on an inferior posi- 
tion, or was less known and recognized, than James, who took rank with the 
leading apostles. — 2. It can hardly be doubted that κλητοῖς is here the substan- 
tive word to which the participles belong as descriptive adjectives. The called 
are beloved and preserved. They are beloved in God the Father; the prepo- 
sition in denotes, strictly, the sphere within which the love takes place or has its 
being, but the usage of the N. T. writers shows that the one by whom they are 
loved is God. The suggestion of this peculiar phrase seems to be, that as they 
are by their Christian life in that sphere in which God inspires, and, by His 
Spirit, dwells in the man, they are also the objects of that love which abides in 
God, and moves outward from Him to holy souls. They are kept for Jesus 
Christ; the dative here denotes, apparently, the one in whose behalf, and for 
whom, as a permanent possession and glory, they are preserved by God. The 
love of God will secure for those who are called the blessing of the future, — 
the called will be glorified, as Paul intimates; but they will be thus glorified, 
because of the relation of God the Father to His Son, —they are kept for Jesus 
Christ. —3. The salutation is peculiar in that it omits the word grace, and adds 
the word love. There can be but little doubt that mercy refers to that which 
goes forth from God to man, and that peace indicates the state of the human 
soul which follows upon the experience of the Divine mercy, and which belongs 
to the relation of the soul to God. Love, as following after these words which 
speak of God’s movement towards man and man’s position towards God, may, 
not improbably, be intended to suggest the idea of the relation between man 
and man, the abounding of love being essential to the perfected Christian state. 
It is possible, however, that love may be added as taking up the thought of the 
participle beloved in the preceding verse, and may refer to the love of God to 
men, one special manifestation of which is mercy. Huther prefers the latter 
view, if ἠγαπημένοις is to be adopted as the true reading in ver. 1. 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 825 


111. 
Vv. 3, 4. 


1. These two verses, following the salutation, form a kind of introduction 
to the Epistle, and they give the special reason which led the author to write it. 
This reason was the appearance, on the stage, of certain false teachers who 
were endangering the faith of Christians. The great similarity between the 
characteristics of these false teachers and those of the heretics described in the 
Second Epistle of Peter is manifest to every careful reader. They have evidently 
already appeared at the time of the writing of this Epistle. In the case of 
2 Peter (see Notes on that Epistle), there seems to be a sort of double statement, 
—now, as if they had already appeared (ii. 17 ff.); and again, in the way of 
prophecy, that they were to be expected and would appear in the future 
(ii. 1 ff.). If the statement of 2 Peter can be properly regarded as altogether 
relating to the future, a strong argument may be found, in connection with this 
fact, in favor of the view that the date of the Epistle of Jude was later than 
that of 2 Peter. —2. The correspondence thus indicated between the two 
Epistles would seem to show that they were addressed to substantially the same 
circle of readers. In neither of the two is there any special designation of the 
readers as to their residence, the only indication in 2 Peter being that which is 
found in iii. 1, which points towards the same persons as those addressed in 
1 Peter, who were residents of the region of Asia Minor. In this Epistle, the 
readers are simply addressed as ἀγαπητοί, which word marks them as Christians, 
but gives no further hint respecting them. —3. In order to the understanding 
of ver. 3, we may notice, that, inasmuch as the phrase ἔσχον ἀνάγκην, k.7.2., 
evidently contains the main thought of the verse, the participle ποιούμενος must 
be determined, in its time, by the verb ἔσχυν. It was while or when he was 
giving diligence to write to the readers of the Epistle respecting the common 
salvation, that he felt constrained. The pres. part. goes back, as a continuous 
present, to the time of the verb, and covers that time, but does not pass forward 
beyond the limits of that time. The writer seems to imply, therefore, that he 
had had, for some time, a desire, and was at the point of putting that desire 
into action, to write to them a letter with regard to the common salvation. 
This term is a general one, and, as such, is possibly inclusive of all which might 
with propriety be covered by it, whether in the matter of fact, or doctrine, or 
method, or explanation of any sort. While in this state of mind, the presence 
and working of the false teachers made him feel it to be necessary to turn his 
exhortation into the line of thought which he now follows. It became the 
readers, in view of the existing dangers, to contend earnestly for the faith. 

4, The faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. This passage is 
the strongest one in the N. T. favoring the view that 7 πίστις has sometimes the 
strictly objective sense, the system of faith, or Christian doctrine. If this is 
the meaning intended by the writer, this fact would tend to show that the 
Epistle was written in the later, rather than the earlier part of the apostolic 
period. The word faith, in almost every case of its occurrence in the N. T., 
means subjective faith. The movement towards the objective sense was, 
naturally and necessarily, a gradual one. It is, indeed, doubtful, whether the 
full objective meaning is intended in this verse. More probably the word, as 
here used, appears in what may be considered a transitional state; and the view 
of Huther is substantially correct, that it means not system of doctrine, but the 


826 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


objective contents of faith, that which Christians believe. The reference is 
rather to the fundamental essential truth of salvation by Christ, than to the 
collection of doctrines making up what is commonly called a theological system. 
—5. The word ἅπαξ apparently carries with it the idea of once for all, because 
of its connection with παραδοθείσῃ, and the contrast implied in the context. 
The participle, by reason of what is said in ver. 17, is probably to be completed 
in its thought by the words by the apostles. —6. The evil or danger indicated 
in ver. 4 is clearly one lying in the moral region. The men alluded to were 
themselves ungodly; and they were turning the grace of God, not into some 
wrong belief, but into wrong conduct and life. These persons are spoken of as 
coming in among the Christian body in a secret and stealthy way, by a side-door, 
as it were (comp. Gal. ii. 4); and this idea is, by the position of the words, set 
forth with especial emphasis. The insidious character of the evil influence, as 
well as its existence, is that. which constrains the writer to address the Christian 
brethren on this subject. 

7. The words. describing what the false teachers do and teach are those of 
the two participial clauses which form the last part of the verse. But before 
stating this, the writer inserts a phrase which marks their character and destiny. 
It is not quite certain whether a comma is to be placed before doeGeic, as Huther 
and several commentators hold, making this word an independent designation; 
or whether, on the other hand, no comma is to be inserted, and ἀσεβ. is to be 
immediately connected with οἱ mpoyeyp. The emphasis is greater if we take the 
former arrangement of the sentence. In view of what follows in later verses, 
and also of the strict and proper meaning of zpoyeyp., it can hardly be questioned 
that this participial phrase refers to these persons, not as predestined to 
condemnation in the eternal counsels and purpose of God, but as corresponding 
with cases mentioned in the O. T., and thus being of the number of those with 
regard to whom the O. T. utters its predictions; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 1. The words 
this judgment, which evidently here suggest the idea of condemnatory judgment, 
refer to what is indicated or set forth in the following verses. Vv. 5-16 suggest 
the condemnation, while they, at the same time, describe the characteristics 
of the persons, and they do so by calling attention to the O. T. times. 

8. Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master 
and Lord, Jesus Christ. — There are evidently two points presented here, but 
the two things mentioned have a close relation to each other. The grace of 
God must, as it would seem, by reason of its contrast with ὠσέλγεια, mean here, 
not the doctrine of grace, or of the way of salvation through faith, but the actual 
Divine grace or favor itself. They turned this grace itself, which came to them 
in the offer of forgiveness, into a means of indulgence in gross immorality. The 
progress of error had passed from doctrine into life. These persons also denied 
the Lord. Rejecting the right idea and influence of the grace which Jesus 
revealed, it was a natural sequence that they should move onward to the denial 
of Jesus Himself. As the word θεόν, following δεσπότην, is to be omitted from 
the text by reason of the preponderance of external evidence against it, we may 
connect δεσπότην with Jesus Christ. The arguments on both sides of the 
question are suggested by Huther in his note. The very close correspondence 
between this Epistle and 2 Peter, and the fact that in that Epistle (ii. 1) the 
word is undoubtedly used of Jesus, seem, on the whole, to overbalance the 
suggestions of Huther on the other side. Both possibilities of explaining 
the words which follow ἀρνούμενοι should, however, be recognized, as they are 
in R. V. text and marg. This word ἀρνούμ. seems to denote a denial both in 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. . F827 


doctrine and practice ; but, so far as it is the former, it is rather a denial of Him 
as regards the truth which He taught, and the revelation of God which He 
made, in their bearing upon life, than a denial of His Messianic office, or of His 
Divine nature, or peculiar relation to God. 


LIII. 
Vv. 5-16. 


1. The writer begins this passage, as Huther remarks, by referring to three 
examples of judgment which may serve to set forth the character of the κρίμα 
mentioned in ver. 4. These three examples are drawn from the history of the 
Egyptians, from the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from that of the fallen 
angels. In 2 Peter, where similar examples are cited for the same purpose, the 
case of the Egyptians is omitted, and that of the people at the time of the flood 
is inserted. This change would, in itself, be a slight indication that the one 
writer did not copy from the other, or at least did not depend on the other, 
but only a slight one; for, in case of such dependence, it is evident that the later 
of the two might feel that the substitution of one historical occurrence for 
another would be more adapted to his purpose, or more impressive. —2. The 
word ἅπαξ is probably best translated once for all ; and the participial clause in 
which it occurs intimates that all this past record was fully known to them, so 
that they needed only to be reminded of it, in any of its parts, in order to 
appreciate the force of its application. — Huther regards the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς, in 
ver. 5, as possibly correct, though he admits its strangeness. It would seem to 
the writer of this note, that, while its presence in some very ancient authorities 
may be easily accounted for by reason of the allusion to Jesus in ver. 4, this 
reading is quite improbable for two reasons; namely: First, because this O. T. 
record is much more naturally connected with God than with Christ; this is 
the connection generally found in the N. T., and it seems to be found in the 
remainder of this Epistle taken as a whole; and secondly, because there is 
manifestly no such occasion here, as we find in 1 Cor. x., for bringing forward 
Christ as the One who was with the Israelites or the O. T. saints. If we read 
ὁ κύριος without the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦς, the reference is, no doubt, to God. — 
3. The adverbial word δεύτερον is well explajned ‘by Dr. Angus, in Schaff’s 
Pop. Comm., as the next thing he did. Uuther is probably correct in giving a 
somewhat extended reference to the dealing with those who did not believe, but 
the passage in Num. xxv. 1-9 may, nevertheless, be prominent in the writer’s 
thought. 

4. The words respecting the angels are slightly different from those of the 
corresponding passage in 2 Peter, where the passage (ii. 4) reads: [f God 
spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and 
committed them to pits {or chains] of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. 
For the word sinned, Jude uses the expression, kept not τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν: this 
expression may probably set forth what their sin consisted in, or that by which 
it was accompanied. That dpy7 has here the meaning dominion, principality, 
rather than first estate, original condition, is now adinitted by many, or most, 
of the best commentators. This meaning is, as Huther remarks, the ordinary 
meaning of the word in the N. T., when it is used of angels; and it is, to say 
the least, as fully consistent as the other interpretation with the clause which 
follows. The reference in this following clause may probably be to what is 


828 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


mentioned in Gen. vi. 1 ff.; but the language used in the remainder of tle verse 
is so connected with that of the Book of Enoch, and of other writings outside 
of the O. T., and it is of such a poetic or figurative character, that the interpreter 
is called upon, by this fact, to exercise much care in his explanation and 
application of the words. —5. The word ἀϊδίοις, in this sense, does not occur 
elsewhere in the N. T., except in Rom. i. 20, where it is applied to God. It is 
derived from dei; but, so far as the statement of the verse is concerned, the 
always idea may be limited to covering the period until the day of judgment. 
The keeping or guarding of these angels fast-bound, so that there may be no 
escape, until the time when condemnation is passed upon them, is the thought 
in the author’s mind. Whether they are to be kept bound in chains after that 
time, or whether some other result of the condemnatory judgment is to befall 
them, is not stated; and it is natural that it should not be, for the purpose of the 
passage is to show, by these examples, the certainty that condemnation will 
come, and not what the particular final consequences of it are to be. In 
2 Peter, according to what may be the best text, they are said to be committed 
to pits of darkness in reserve for judgment. The word Tartarus is used only in 
2 Peter. Professor Salmond, in Schaff’s Pop. Comm. on that Epistle, says, 
and apparently with reason, ‘‘ Peter has in view [in the use of this word in the 
passage in question] neither Hades, the world of the departed generally, nor 
Gehenna, hell, in the sense of the place of final judgment, but the intermediate 
scene or state of penalty.’’ ; 

6. The fact that Sodom and Gomorrah are spoken of as having in like 
manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange 
flesh, is favorable to the view that the reference to the angels is connected with 
Gen. vi., but also especially with the Book of Enoch. In 2 Peter we do not 
find this special designation of the sin of Sodom. This is to be accounted for, 
no doubt, in connection with the different purpose of the two writers, and the 
fact that in 2 Peter the allusion to Sodom does not follow immediately after 
that which is made to the angels. The word αἰώνιος, as used by Jude with 
reference to Sodom, is employed in a sense kindred to that in which we speak 
of- the everlasting hills. The endless fire of the future, as that expression has 
been sometimes used with reference to final Divine punishment, is manifestly 
not intended here; for the reference is to the destruction of earthly cities, not 
of souls. The expression of Jude is substantially equivalent, no doubt, to 
that in 2 Peter: turning them into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow. 
Through this overthrow, and the suggestions which it was calculated to give, 
God made (2 Peter) them, set them forth as (Jude), an example. — That the 
words of eternal fire depend on the word punishment in Jude (R. V. text), and 
not on the word example (R. V. marg.), is held, as Huther remarks, by most 
expositors, The reasons which Huther urges in favor of the other view are 
worthy of serious consideration; but they do not seem to be sufficient, in view 
of the fact that these cities were destroyed by an actual fire, which, so far as 
their longer existence was concerned, was perpetual in its destructive power; 
and the word endless, as used of the angels, is descriptive only of what precedes 
the judgment; eternal fire after that is only hinted at, not declared in terms. 
The corresponding passage in 2 Peter, which reads, ‘‘turning the cities into 
ashes, condemned them with an overthrow,’’ bears also in favor of the view 
that the fire in Jude is the actual (earthly) fire which destroyed, and thus con- 
stituted the punishment of, Sodom and Gomorrah, and not the fire of Gehenna, 
The suggestion of Huther, that zip αἰώνιον always designates hell-fire, can hardly 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 829 


be insisted upon, when it is remembered that this expression occurs but three 
times in the N. T. (the other two instances being. Matt. xviii. 8 and xxv. 41, in 
both which cases the phrase is εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον). 

7. The word μέντοι in ver. 8 is translated yet by R. V., as if this verse were 
in contrast to what precedes, and as if the thought were: notwithstanding these 
warning examples. But more probably the view of Huther is correct, that it 
serves for a strengthening of the expression: “these men actually do the same 
thing as the Sodomites.’’ —8. The word ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι seems to refer to the 
thoughts and imaginings of these men in their sin and opposition to God, 
which are connected with and result in the pollution of the flesh, and the 
despising of dominion, etc. The argument of Huther with respect to κυριότητα, 
as referring to God or Jesus Christ, is forcible, and this view of the word seems 
to be correct; but the suggestions which he makes with regard to δόξας, as 
referring to evil angels because of ver. 9, are not to be considered as a sufficient . 
support for that view. The repetition of the δέ may be accounted as following 
the line of the wév . . . δέ, and not as indicating a marked difference in the two 
sentences: set at ndught dominion, and rail at dignities. More probably, δόξας 
refers to the angelic powers (good angels), as connected with the Divine lordship 
(κυριότητα). --- 9. The reference to the action of Michael, here spoken of, is 
apparently for the purpose of showing the impropriety of the conduct of these 
men by calling to mind the fact that the great archangel did not act in this way 
even towards Satan. ‘The story here alluded to was probably a Jewish tradition, 
familiar. to the writer and the readers. Whether true in fact, or not, it fully 
answered the writer’s purpose as an illustration; that it was a tradition having 
no foundation in fact, may not be affirmed, but it was legitimate for Jude to 
use it as a well-known story. The corresponding passage in 2 Peter seems 
to refer to the bringing of a railing judgment either against these daring 
persons or against the δόξαι, and in either case it has a more general character 
than this in Jude, but may be, in some way, connected with the same story. 
The explanation of xpiou βλασφημίας given by Huther is doubtless correct. — 
10. Ver. 10 presents the attitude and action of these false teachers in relation to 
two points, which answer to what is said of them in ver. 4. These men really 
rejected, in their general discourse and action, the authority of God, and gave 
themselves up to lust and sensual indulgence. They combined the self-conceit 
of scepticism with its tendency to immorality, when it works towards its worst 
results. What belonged to the region above their intellectual sphere, they 
reviled and despised; but not only this: what lay within the region of their 
earthly apprehension, they used only for the lowest ends, as if they were mere 
animals. 

11. Ver. 11 comes in at a later point in the description of these persons given 
in 2 Peter, and apparently more in the natural order. Here, in the vehemence 
of the writer’s denunciation of them, he breaks in with these words as the 
ground of pronouncing a “woe upon them.” The allusion in 2 Peter is only 
to Balaam, that to Cain and Korah being omitted. Dr. Lumby regards this 
verse in Jude as having in it a sort of climax, and possibly his view is correct. 
He says: ‘‘These teachers were [so the writer of the Epistle would affirm] 
envious of men and perverse towards God, like Cain; they were teachers of 
error, and willing to work evil and lead others to it, for gain’s sake, as was 
Balaam; and their ambitious self-seeking led them to resist all authority, after 
the manner of Korah.’”’ It may be, however that the general resemblance to 
these persons is intended, without the idea of a climax. The word perished, in 


830 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


the last clause of the verse, seems to be used as anticipatory of their final fate; 
they had given themselves up to the course indicated so wilfully and completely, 
that the final result for them was, as it were, already secured and become a 
reality. 

12, The correspondence, in the description which immediately follows this 
denunciatory passage, with 2 Pet. ii. 18, will be noticed; and yet there seems to 
be a kind of compression in the language here and elsewhere in Jude’s descrip- 
tion, and an indignant intensity, which surpasses what we find in the other 
Epistle, and which suggests the thought that the writer of this letter had seen 
the life and workings of these false teachers, towards whom the author of the 
other Epistle had only looked forward as likely to arise in the future, or, at 
the most, as in the beginning of their development in the matter of the evils 
indicated. —13. The word σπιλάδες (ver. 12) takes the place in Jude of σπῖλοι in 
2 Peter, according to the best authorities, and the word ἀγάπαις in Jude has 
in some manuscripts ἀπάταις substituted for it in 2 Peter. σπιλάδες is generally 
understood to mean rocks, and this seems probably to be the correct meaning of 
the word. That the word may, however, be substantially equivalent to ozido, 
can hardly be doubted (see Huther’s note), and the R. V. is justified in inserting 
the alternative meaning spots in the margin. If the former signification of the 
word is adopted, the suggestion of the idea of hidden rocks is not improbably 
contained in it; and thus the idea of danger from these men, and from the 
character of their influence, is set before the reader’s mind. The other mean- 
ing, being adopted, only brings to mind the thought of defilement and dis- 
figurement. The love-feasts are alluded to, apparently, as the times of a sacred 
fellowship among the Christian believers, when they were observed with the 
right feeling and spirit. What is here referred to is a far greater development 
of what was manifested in Corinth: see 1 Cor. xi. 20ff. In 2 Peter these 
persons are spoken of as revelling in the love-feasts, if ἀγάπαις is the true 
reading there; or in their deceivings, if ἀπάταις is to be regarded as the correct 
text (so Sin., A*, C, Καὶ, L, P, and some other authorities). The reference in 
both Epistles, whatever be the true text, is clearly to what occurred at these 
feasts, in which the members of the churches united, and which, in their right 
use and purpose, were holy meetings. Only with the reading ἀπάταις they are 
represented as gaining their ends, etc., by deceit. The word συνευωχούμενοι is 
common to both Epistles; ὑμῖν, however, is added in 2 Peter. R. V. translates 
in the same way in both cases, and this is very probably correct; but evidently, 
as Huther intimates, the σὺν in Jude may mean together, or with each other. 
Without fear indicates the bold manner in which they took this course, having 
no fear of God’s righteous displeasure or punishment. Whether ἀφόβως is to be 
connected with the participle which precedes it, or that which follows it, is 
uncertain. R. V. gives the latter connection, and perhaps this is the preferable 
way of understanding the words. It would seem that the word ποιμαίνοντες must 
point to the position of these men as in some sense professed teachers or leaders, 
who act solely, and possibly in the way of deceit, for their own advantage. 

14. In the following words, by a fourfold figure, the writer represents these 
men as empty, restless, useless, destructive teachers of the worst sort. Clouds 
without water, carried along by winds: these words indicate their emptiness, 
and the fact that, being thus empty, they are borne along’ anywhither, and 
consequently are unsafe to follow. Nothing comes from them, and they move 
in no one direction. Autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the 
roots: the idea of no good coming from them is presented again here, and it is 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 831 


added that the life-power which gives the possibility of fruit is gone. They are 
fruitless: they have lost the life-principle out of themselves, and they. have 
become as trees which, because they are fruitless and also lifeless, are plucked 
up by the roots. The utter impossibility of any good spiritual result proceeding 
from them is thus most emphatically set forth. Wild waves of the sea, foaming 
out their own shame: this strong figure seems to represent the restless move- 
ment of these men in the course of immorality, wherein they show forth, by the ἡ 
excess of lust and evil, their shameful character, as the tossing waves break 
forth into foam. Wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness has 
been reserved for ever: whether the writer refers here to comets which appear 
for a time and then pass away from sight, is not certain; but not improbably 
this is the case. Perhaps the reference is to meteors. The strong and intense 
poetic rhetoric of these expressions, and the fact that in all the preceding cases 
the figure is carried throughout all the words, may lead us to doubt whether the 
last phrase, for whom [which], etc., is to be referred to the false teachers, except 
so far as an application of them is thus made as part of the figure. More 
probably, it would seem that the writer represents these stars which break their 
way across the heavens, as going down to endless night, and being utterly 
extinguished. But, in the way of application of the figure, there must be some 
force in these words, as indicating the final result for these men. — By these 
four figures, as Dr. Angus says, ‘‘all that is mischievous, useless, disastrous, in 
sea or land or sky, becomes in turn the symbol of the character and destiny of 
these men.’”’—15. R. V. translates τούτοις, of ver. 14, to these; but it is quite 
commonly understood in the sense of with reference to these, as Huther also 
takes it, comparing Luke xviii. 31. This construction in such a sentence is 
undoubtedly peculiar and uncommon. The writer closes these denunciatory 
figures by applying to the false teachers the prophetic words of Enoch, which, 
through their position as following the last clause of ver. 13, make the most 
solemn application of that clause. The question as to the origin of these words 
— whether they are derived from the Book of Enoch, which we now possess, but 
with the language of which they do not perfectly correspond, though they are 
very strikingly similar, or whether they belonged to an oral tradition which 
came down to the apostolic times, and brought words spoken, or supposed to be 
spoken, by Enoch—is one of considerable difficulty. To the writer of this 
note, the derivation from the Book of Enoch seems more probable. 

16. Ver. 16 seems to be an additional description of the false teachers sug- 
gested to the writer, in the excitement of his feeling against them, by the closing 
words of the quotation from Enoch’s prophecy. They are murmurers, he says, 
complainers, walking after their own lusts. The word ‘‘complainers”’ strictly 
conveys the idea of dissatisfaction or fault-finding with their lot, and, in connec- 
tion with yoyyvorai, can scarcely have any other reference than to murmuring and 
complaining against God (comp. the preceding verse: “hard things spoken against 
him’’). — The remaining words of this verse present again the idea of their lust 
and immorality, their self-conceit and vanity, exalting themselves, as Huther 
says, “ἴῃ contrast to the humility of the Christians submitting themselves to 
God,” and their readiness to give honor to persons of high position, etc., from 
whom they might hope for some good for themselves. They utter complaints 
against God, and refuse to have that humility and submission before Him which 
they are ready to have, in outward show and form at least, in the presence of 
those who are exalted in the world. The selfishness of this respect for men is 
distinctly expressed: for the sake of advantage. 


892 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


That there is a nervous energy, and a vehemence of denunciation also, in 
this whole passage, as compared with the passage in 2 Peter, the words of which 
are so largely similar, the attentive reader who looks carefully at the two will, 
as the writer of this note cannot doubt, be ready to admit. Whether this 
characteristic of Jude’s style is due to the character of his mind, or whether it 
is to be explained, on the other hand, by the fact that he was in the presence 
‘of these men, while the other writer was only speaking prophetically of the 
future, is a noint more difficult of determination. + 


LIV. 
v. 17-23. 


1. The writer opens this passage with a call upon the readers to remember 
the prophetic words of the apostles, respecting persons of the character of these 
false teachers. This prophetic declaration, being borne in mind, would tend to 
strengthen them against the evil influence of these men. The words ὑπὸ τῶν 
ἀποστόλων seem, as Huther suggests, hardly consistent with the supposition that 
Jude was himself an apostle. Certainly the expression is less easily reconciled 
with such a supposition, than are the words in the Book of Revelation (xxi. 14) 
and in 2 Peter (iii. 2), which are sometimes compared with them. In the pas- 
sage in Revelation, the writer is looking forward to the future and final blessed- 
ness of the Church, and is writing in the prophetico-poetic style. That in such 
a passage he should speak of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem as 
having upon them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, can scarcely 
be regarded as strange, when we consider the well-understood and universally 
acknowledged prominence of the apostles as the leaders of the whole Christian 
company, —a leadership which, of course; they were conscious of themselves, 
and which they did not hesitate to claim. In 2 Peter, on the other hand, where 
the language is very nearly what it is here, the difference in the expression is 
such as to make the use of it by an apostle less improbable, if we read ὑμῶν in 
the text, as we should, according to the great majority of the authorities which 
have most weight. ‘‘The commandment of the Lord and Saviour given by 
your apostles,’’ is an expression which Peter or John might have used, it would 
seem, as one of a body of bishops might speak of ‘‘ your bishops.” But Jude’s 
language: ‘‘The words spoken formerly by the apostles of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, how that they said to you,” is of a different sort. This language, how- 
ever, if it be admitted that it proves Jude not to have been an apostle, does not 
prove that the writer of the Epistle was not Judas the brother of James, who 
was the Lord’s brother. The bearing of the verse, in this respect, would be 
only on the apostolic position of the two brothers, and so on the exact relation- 
ship which they sustained to the Lord. —2. The probability with respect to the 
text in ver. 18 favors ἐσχάτου τοῦ χρόνου, and, if this be correct, the meaning is: 
at the end of the time. The expréssion sets forth in another form the same 
idea which is found in 2 Pet. iii. 3, ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων χρόνων. The closing days of the 
ante-Messianic age were a time when these developments of evil were anticipated 
by the N. T. writers, as connected with the words of Christ in the eschatological 
discourses, etc. The presentation of the matter in 2 Peter is slightly different, 
the words respecting the mockers Veing made dependent on a participle γινώ- 
σκοντες, so that the readers are exhorted to remember the words spoken by the 
prophets, etc., knowing that the mockers will appear in the last days. This 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 833 


difference in the manner of representation is, perhaps, indicative in some slight 
degree of the relation in time between the two Epistles ; Jude writing after 
they had appeared, and Peter before. — The words τῶν ἀσεβειῶν form a descrip- 
tive genitive, lusts of impieties, as more emphatic than an adjective. 

3. In vv. 19-23, the writer adds a brief conclusion, in which he sums up 
what the readers should do with regard to their own life, and in respect to those 
who were, or might.be, misled by the false teachers. This passage he opens by 
a repetition, in a summary statement, of the characteristics of these teachers 
themselves. The word ἀποδιορίζοντες is placed first, and probably means causing 
divisions. This occasioning of divisions, or making of factions, was the natural 
result of their doctrines and action; and it was the point which might properly 
be made most prominent, as, in bringing his Epistle to its close, the author 
desired to tell his readers what to do in maintaining the real life of the Church. 
The word ψυχικοί is explained by its connection with πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες: and both 
of these expressions, one on the negative and the other on the positive side, set 
forth, in a general and comprehensive way, their unchristian character. They 
belong in the sphere which is outside of the teaching, influence, and power of 
the Divine Spirit, and in the sphere of the animal or sensual, or the natural as 
distinguished from the spiritual. This adjective ψυγική occurs in Jas. iii. 15, 
where it is placed between ἐπίγειος and δαιμονιώδης ; in the present case, by reason 
of the language used, in earlier verses, in describing these persons, it possibly 
borders more nearly on the idea of the latter of these two words than the 
former, but more probably it has its more general meaning. They lived only in 
the earthly natural life. —4. Ver. 20 stands in a kind of contrast to ver. 19, 
ὑμεῖς being opposed to otto, The two participial clauses which are found in 
ver. 20, as well as the one in ver. 21, are subordinate to the verb τηρήσατε, though 
not in precisely the same way. The one beginning with ἐποικοδομοῦντες expresses 
the antecedent condition, on the basis of which they were to keep themselves in 
the love of God; that which follows, praying in the Holy Spirit, sets forth the 
means, or a means, by which the end was to be secured; and the one in ver. 21, 
looking for the mercy, etc., presents an attendant circumstance or accompanying 
state, —they should keep themselves, etc., with an attendant waiting for and 
expectation of the mercy of the Lord. —5. The word πίστει, in ver. 20, is 
regarded by Huther as used in an objective sense, but apparently as denoting 
the objective contents of faith rather than the system of doctrine. If this is the 
correct view in ver. 3, it is so, not improbably, here also. But it does not seem 
necessary, if we consider this verse in itself alone, to give the word this sense, 
for the character and life can certainly be built upon subjective faith, and 
subjective faith may properly be described by the adjective holy, or most holy; 
faith is a holy thing. —The emphatic position of ἐν tv, ἁγίῳ may be accounted 
for as connected with the πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες predicated of the false teachers. 
Perhaps, however, the writer reverses the order of the two participial clauses on 
mere rhetorical grounds. — The love of God here spoken of is probably, but not 
certainly, God’s love towards them, rather than theirs towards Him. It is, as 
Huther remarks, in God’s love to us, that the hope of the future mercy of Christ 
has its ground. — The connection of εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον with τηρήσατε, which Huther 
favors, is, perhaps, the most natural one, but possibly Alford is right in joining 
the phrase with the combined idea of τηρῆσατε and προσδεχόμενοι. 

6. Vv. 22, 23, add to the exhortation addressed to the readers with reference 
to the growth of their own life in the present exposure to the dangerous 
influence of these false teachers, a series of exhortations respecting the manner 


» 


834 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


in which they should deal with persons who might be affected by that influence. 
The three classes of persons alluded to, are apparently arranged according to 
the measure in which they are supposed to be influenced, beginning with those 
in whose case the measure is least. This must, at least, be held to be the true 
view, if éAedre is the correct reading in ver. 22, as opposed to ἐλέγχετε. With the 
other reading, the question of the order is more doubtful. According as the 
former or the latter text is adopted, the meaning of the participle διακρινομένους 
will, or may, vary; in the former case, this participle must probably have the 
meaning being in doubt (R. V. text), but possibly it may mean, as R. V. marg., 
while they dispute with you; in the latter case, the latter meaning is almost 
certainly the true one. The verb éAéyxere, if read, is to be translated refute 
(A. R. V. marg.) or convict, including the idea of overcoming in argument, and 
a consequent rebuke and condemnation. This latter seems to be the sense of 
the verb in ver. 15. The most natural progress of the sentences here, as well as 
what may be regarded as, on the whole, the preponderating external testimony, 
favors the other text-reading. The verb ἐλεᾶτε being adopted as the text, and 
the participle being understood to mean being in doubt, we may understand the 
writer’s exhortation to be as follows: that the Christian readers should have 
compassionate feeling and corresponding action towards those of the first class; 
as they were in a state of doubt and wavering only, such an attitude towards them 
might bring them to the right course: secondly, that they should save those of 
the second class by snatching them out of the fire; these persons had gone much 
farther astray than those of the preceding class, and more vigorous measures 
were needed for them, yet still measures prompted by compassion: thirdly, that 
they should have a compassionate feeling toward those making up the third 
class; but this feeling should move or be exercised in the sphere of fear, with a 
hatred of that which was defiling them, and which would defile all who have any 
share in it. These last-mentioned persons are, by reason of these added words, 
presented as those with whom even compassionate intercourse was attended by a 
certain danger. —7. With respect to the individual words or phrases in vv. 22, 
23, it may be said, (a) that the use of διακρινόμενος in ver. 9, where it undoubtedly 
means disputing, favors the view that it is used in the same sense here; but the 
well-known use of this word, elsewhere, in the other sense (doubting) justifies 
sufficiently its use by Jude with this meaning, and the progress of the sentences, 
as explained above, is favorable to this use of the word, with the reading ἐλεᾶτε 


or ἐλεεῖτε, (δ) The phrase snatching them out of the fire seems to indicate, on ° 


the one hand, the great difficulty, and, on the other, the possibility, of rescuing 
the persons referred to. The word fire is only indicative of danger and deadly 
evil, and of the difficulty of rescue, and has apparently no direct reference here 
to eternal fire or the punishment of the future world. (c) The last clause of 
ver. 23 is correctly explained by Huther. The χιτῶν, the undergarment, ‘‘is to 
the author the symbol of whatever, by means of external contact, shares in the 
moral destruction of those men.’’ In this connection, the reference is, as we 
may believe, to the greater, rather than the minor evil of this sort. Huther, 
however, disagrees with the view expressed in this note respecting the three 
classes, and would rather regard them as arranged in a reverse order to that 
which has been suggested here. — Wordsworth supposes that there may be some 
connection between the last clause of ver. 23 (so far as the suggestion of the 
thought and the expression are concerned) and Zech. iii, 2-4. This, however, 
is doubtful. 


— 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. ‘ 835 


LY. 
Vv. 24, 25. 


1. The Epistle closes with a doxology which, in its general form, resembles 
that at the end of the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. xvi. 25a, 27), and which, in 
its opening thought, is nearly related to the thought of this whole Epistle, and 
particularly of the last preceding verses (20-23). In its resemblance to Rom. xvi., 
we have the words, to Him who is able to guard you (stablish you, Rom.), to the 
only [wise] God our Saviour through Jesus Christ be glory (to the only wise God 
through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory, Rom.). The word σοφῷ in Jude is 
omitted by the best authorities, and the words διὰ "I. Xp, τ. κυρ. ἡμῶν, which are 
not found in T. R., are supported by the weightiest evidence. —2. The word 
ἁπταίστους, which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., is particularly adapted to 
this place; and the consummation at the end, for which this φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίσ- 
τους prepares and preserves the Christian readers, is presented in the following 
words. The preposition ἐν before ἀγαλλιάσει denotes the sphere or condition 
in which the στῆσαι ἀμώμους will have its action or result; and so the condition in 
which the persons who are thus set before God blameless, will be in connection 
with, and as the issue of, the στῆσαι, --- ὃ. Huther takes διὰ "I. X. as belonging to 
σωτῆρι ἡμῶν, our Saviour through Jesus Christ, and this is not improbably the 
correct view. —4. The fulness of the form of the doxology is noticeable, as 
compared with other doxologies in the N. T., and particularly the fulness of the 
form of expression πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ viv καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας. The 
past, the present, and the future are united, —from everlasting and to everlast- 
ing. With respect to the verb to be supplied in the doxology, — whether ἐστί 
or ἔστω, ---- the prayer or wish-element, which belongs to the very idea of a doxo- 
logical sentence, and the probabilities appertaining to most such sentences, favor 
the supply of ἔστω: while the argument urged by De Wette in favor of ἐστί, that 
a prayer that glory may be before all time is out of place and fitness, is worthy 
of consideration. It is doubtful, however, whether the sentence is to be looked 
at in this way. Not improbably, in giving his thought and desire an extension 
over all time or eternity, he simply offers his prayer that, throughout all, glory 
may be given, without thinking of the accurate fitting of his words in the 
manner supposed. 





a © τ" 


αὐ 
γεγώς τ Sot τ χὴν» 


Pd ΤᾺ 











i aon 
Sethe νος Sey: 
So es 











DATE DUE 





























--- --- - ili σον τς, 
] ᾿ 
Γ 
a 
) 
Ν. 28 = δον α΄ ae 
᾿ 











- 


᾿ ᾿ 3 
on tS EME LS ν 
— = τόμον oe ela 
< > 








BS2344 .M613 1884 20 
1 1012 00012 6 


